Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 1 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

) 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING ) 

COMMISSION, ) 

) Case No. 1:22-cv-21520 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DAMIAN CASTILLA, DCAST CAPITAL ) 

INVESTMENTS LLC, and FIVE TRADERS ) 

LLC, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

CONSENT ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

AND OTHER EOUIT ABLE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT 

DAMIAN CASTILLA 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission" or 

"CFTC") filed a Complaint against Defendants Damian Castilla ("Castilla"), DCAST Capital 

Investments LLC ("DCAST"), and Five Traders LLC ("Five Traders") ( 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). 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS 

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

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

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

Monetary Penalty, and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendant Castilla ("Consent Order"); 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 2 of 35

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-l(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 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, 

§§ 201-253, 110 Stat. 847, 857-74 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412 and in scattered sections of5 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 Castilla is now or in the future resides outside 

the jurisdiction of this Court; 

2 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 3 of 35

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 Defendant 

Castilla's and/or his agents' and/or employees': (a) testimonial obligations; or (b) right to take 

legal positions in other proceedings to which the Commission is not a party. Defendant Castilla 

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. Consents to the use of the findings and conclusions in this Consent Order in this 

proceeding and in any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the Commission 

is a party or claimant, and agrees that they shall be taken as true and correct and be given 

preclusive effect therein, without further proof; 

13. Does not consent, however, to the use of this Consent Order, or the findings and 

conclusions herein, as the sole basis for any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to 

3 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 4 of 35

which the Commission is a party, other than a: statutory disqualification proceeding; proceeding 

in bankruptcy, or receivership; or proceeding to enforce the terms of this Order; and 

14. 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 him 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-l, as set forth herein. The findings and 

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

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS: 

A. Findings of Fact 

1. The Parties to this Consent Order 

15. 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. 

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

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

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

November 2013. 

2. Other Defendants Not Parties to this Consent Order 

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

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

4 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 5 of 35

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

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

manager ofDCAST. The clerk entered default against Defendant DCAST on July 8, 2022. (Dkt 

No. 10.) Consistent with the Court's order granting Defendant Castilla's Motion to Set Aside 

Default, Plaintiff will move for default judgment against DCAST within twenty days after the 

entry ofthis Consent Order. (See DktNo. 16.) 

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

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

owner and manager of Five Traders. The clerk entered default against Defendant Five Traders on 

July 8, 2022. (Dkt No. 10.) Consistent with the Court's order granting Defendant Castilla's 

Motion to Set Aside Default, Plaintiff will move for default judgment against Five Traders within 

twenty days after the entry of this Consent Order. (See Dkt No. 16.) 

3. Defendants Fraudulently Solicited Pool Participants for the Pools. 

19. Between at least January 1, 2014 and continuing through May 17, 2022, the date 

of the filing of the Complaint (the "Relevant Period"), Castilla, DCAST, and Five Traders, 

engaged in a fraudulent scheme to solicit and misappropriate money given to them for the 

purpose of trading commodity futures contracts ("futures") in commodity pools. DCAST and 

Five Traders were unregistered commodity pool operators ("CPOs"), and Castilla was an 

unregistered associated person ("AP") of both CPOs. During the Relevant Period, Defendants 

fraudulently solicited over $3 .4 million from over fifty individuals and entities ("pool 

participants") to trade futures in commodity pools (the "Pools") that did not exist. 

5 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 6 of 35

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

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

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

21. Defendants misrepresented a long history of professional trading---claiming, at 

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

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

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

Defendants engaged in was not profitable. 

22. Defendants claimed that pool participants would have separate subaccounts 

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

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

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

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

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

activity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 7 of 35

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

that Defendants provided to pool participants. 

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

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

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

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

payments as proof that Defendants ran legitimate, profitable commodity pools. In one instance, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 8 of 35

4. Defendants Misappropriated the Vast Majority of Pool Funds for 

Personal Expenses and to Make Ponzi Payments. 

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

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

payments were the result of profitable trading. 

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

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

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

withdrawals to Castilla' s personal bank accounts. 

29. Defendants deposited only a small portion of pool participants' funds for their 

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

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

to make Ponzi payments. 

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

profitable. 

5. Defendants Provided False Account Statements Misrepresenting the 

Value of Client Accounts. 

31. Defendants regularly provided pool participants with account statements that 

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

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

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

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

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

8 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 9 of 35

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

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

trading futures. 

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

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

receiving over $3 .4 million from pool participants for the purpose of trading commodity 

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

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

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

6. Defendants' Misappropriation, Misrepresentations, and Omissions 

Were Intentional or Reckless and Operated as a Fraud on Pool 

Participants. 

35. Defendants intentionally or recklessly made material misrepresentations. Each 

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

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

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

that the Pools did not exist. 

37. Defendants never intended to trade pool participants' funds. 

38. Less than four percent of pool participants' funds were deposited to futures 

trading accounts as promised and Defendants never used any pool participants' funds to establish 

subaccounts as promised. 

39. Defendants issued false account statements to pool participants showing 

significant growth in pool participants' subaccounts that never existed. 

9 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 10 of 35

40. On March 19, 2020, the Florida State Attorney's Office charged Castilla, in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

payments. 

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

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

expenses and for Ponzi payments. 

7. Defendants Failed to Operate the Pools as Separate Legal Entities or 

Receive Pool Funds in the Pools' Names. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. By transferring pool funds to Castilla's personal bank accounts, Defendants also 

commingled pool funds with non-pool funds. 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 11 of 35

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

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

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

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

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

Commission. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50. During the Relevant Period, Defendant Castilla was never registered as an AP of 

DCAST or Five Traders. 

9. Defendants Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Relevant 

Documents. 

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

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

11 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 12 of 35

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

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

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

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

public accountant. 

10. Defendants Made False Statements of Material Fact to the 

Commission. 

52. On June 21, 2021, the Commission's Division of Enforcement issued a subpoena 

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

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

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

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

clients. 

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

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

customers or clients. 

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

statement of material fact, because Defendants had at least 50 clients during the Relevant Period. 

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

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

a false statement of material fact. 

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

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

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

12 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 13 of 35

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

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

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

B. Conclusions of Law 

1. The Court has Jurisdiction, and Venue is Proper. 

53. 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-l(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 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. 

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

Defendant Castilla resides in this jurisdiction and the acts and practices in violation of the Act 

occurred within this District. 

2. Defendants Fraudulently Solicited, Misappropriated Funds, and 

Issued False Account Statements in Violation of Section 4b(a)(l)(A)-

(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(l)(A)-(C). 

55. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(l)(A)-(C) makes it unlawful: 

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

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

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

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

person ... 

13 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 14 of 35

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

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

report or statement or willfully to enter or cause to be entered for the other 

person any false record; [or] 

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

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

execution of any order or contract, or in regard to any act of agency 

performed, with respect to any order or contract for ... the other person[.] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theft in connection with his solicitation of certain pool participants. 

57. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, in or in connection with 

any order to make, or the making of, commodity futures transactions made on or subject to the 

rules of a designated contract market knowingly or recklessly: (1) cheated or defrauded or 

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

participants by any means whatsoever. 

58. By reason of the foregoing, Castilla, DCAST, and Five Traders violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b(a)(l)(A)-(C). 

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

knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

14 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 15 of 35

60. When Castilla committed the acts, omissions, and failures in violation of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b( a )(1 )(A)-( C), he was acting within the scope of his agency, employment, and office at 

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

those ofDCAST and Five Traders pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(a)(l)(B), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2021). 

61. At all times relevant to this Consent Order, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST's and Five Traders's conduct; therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Castilla is liable for DCAST's and Five Traders's violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(l)(A)-(C). 

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

statement is a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(l )(A)-(C). 

3. Defendants Committed Fraud by Commodity Pool Operators and 

Their Associated Person in Violation of Section 4o(l)(A) and (B) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(A), (B). 

63. Section la(l0) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(l0), in part, defines a commodity pool as 

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

in commodity interests, .... " 

64. Section la(l l)(A)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(l l)(A)(i), defines a CPO, in 

relevant part, as any person: 

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

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

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

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

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

trading in commodity interests, including any-

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

15 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 16 of 35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AP of a CPO if that person is associated with a CPO as 

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

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

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

commodity pool or 

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

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

or agent ofDCAST and Five Traders (or occupied a similar status or performed similar 

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

participation in the Pools. 

68. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(A), (B) prohibits CPOs and APs of CPOs, whether registered 

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

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

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

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

prospective client or participant. 

16 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 17 of 35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theft in connection with his solicitation of certain pool participants. 

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

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

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud pool participants and prospective pool participants; or 

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

upon pool participants or prospective pool participants, by misappropriating pool participant 

funds and making material misrepresentations to pool participants. 

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

72. At all times relevant to this Consent Order, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST's and Five Traders's conduct; therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Castilla is liable for DCAST's and Five Traders's violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(A), (B). 

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

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

17 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 18 of 35

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

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

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

statement is a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 60(1 )(A), (B). 

4. DCAST and Five Traders Failed to Register as a Commodity Pool 

Operator in Violation of Section 4m(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §6m(l), 

and Castilla is Liable as a Control Person for Their Violations. 

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

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

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

such ... [CPO] .... " 

76. By reason of the foregoing, DCAST and Five Traders engaged in a business, for 

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

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

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

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

therefore, DCAST and Five Traders acted as a CPO, as defined by 7 U.S.C. § la(l l). 

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

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

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

in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l). 

79. At all times relevant to this Consent Order, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

18 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 19 of 35

indirectly, DCAST's and Five Traders's conduct; therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Castilla is liable for DCAST's and Five Traders's violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l). 

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

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

5. Castilla Failed to Register as an Associated Person of Commodity 

Pool Operators in Violation of Sections 4k(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6k(2). 

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

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

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

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

82. 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) also makes it "unlawful for any commodity pool operator to 

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

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

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

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

Castilla solicited funds for participation in the Pools. 

84. Castilla was never registered with the CFTC as an AP ofDCAST or Five Traders. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 20 of 35

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

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

88. Each instance that Castilla acted as an unregistered AP ofDCAST and Five 

Traders but failed to register with the CFTC as such is a separate and distinct violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). 

6. Defendants Failed to Operate a Pool as a Separate Entity, Failed to 

Accept Funds in the Name of the CPO, and Commingled Pool 

Property in Violation of Regulation 4.20, 17 C.F .R. § 4.20 (2021 ). 

89. 17 C.F .R. § 4.20( a)(l) requires a CPO, whether registered or not, to operate its 

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

90. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b) prohibits CPOs, whether registered or not, from receiving 

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

91. 17 C.F .R. § 4.20( c) requires that a CPO may not commingle the property of any 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 4.20(a)(l), (b), and(c). 

94. At all times relevant to this Consent Order, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

20 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 21 of 35

indirectly, DCAST's and Five Traders's conduct; therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Castilla is liable for DCAST's and Five Traders's violations of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20. 

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

participants' funds in the name ofDCAST or Five Traders rather than in the name of the Pools, 

and commingling pool funds with non-pool funds is a separate and distinct violation of 17 C.F.R. 

§ 4.20. 

7. Defendants Failed to Provide Pool Disclosures and Other Required 

Documents in Violation of Regulations 4.21 and 4.22, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 4.21, 4.22 (2021). 

96. 17 C.F.R. § 4.21, in relevant part, provides that: 

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

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

operates or intends to operate a Disclosure Document for the pool 

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

delivers to the prospective participant a subscription agreement for the 

pool .... 

97. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders did not provide to 

prospective pool participants a Disclosure Document with the necessary disclosures in accordance 

with 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.24 and 4.25. 

98. 17 C.F.R. § 4.22 requires, in relevant part, that CPOs (registered or required to be 

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

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

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

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

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

which the pool engaged during the reporting period. 

21 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 22 of 35

99. During the Relevant Period, DCAST and Five Traders did not provide periodic 

account statements to pool participants that itemized the total amount of realized net gain or loss 

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

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

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

reporting period. 

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

and 4.22. 

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

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

indirectly, DCAST's and Five Traders's conduct; therefore, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), 

Castilla is liable for DCAST's and Five Traders's violations of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 and 4.22. 

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

and reports to prospective pool participants and pool participants is a separate and distinct 

violation of 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 and 4.22. 

8. Defendants Made False Statements to the Commission in Violation of 

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

103. 7 U.S.C. § 9(2) provides that it "shall be unlawful for any person to make any 

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 23 of 35

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

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

106. At all times relevant to this Consent Order, Castilla controlled DCAST and Five 

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

indirectly, DCAST's and Five Traders's false statements to the Commission; therefore, pursuant 

to Section 13(b) of the Act, Castilla is liable for DCAST's and Five Traders's violations of7 

U.S.C. § 9(2). 

107. Each false statement of material fact to the Commission is a separate and distinct 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(2). 

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

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

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

prohibited from directly or indirectly: 

a. Cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, other persons in or in 

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

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

with, any other person in violation of Section 4b(a)(l)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6b(a)(l)(A); 

b. Willfully making or causing to be made false statements or reports to another 

person in connection with any order to make, or the making of, any contract of 

sale of any commodity for future delivery that is made, or to be made, for or on 

behalf of, or with, any other person in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(l)(B); 

23 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 24 of 35

c. Willfully deceiving or attempting to deceive other persons in or in connection 

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

for future delivery in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(l)(C). 

d. Employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or participant or 

prospective client or participant, or engaging in any transaction, practice or course 

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

prospective participant in violation of Section 40(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 60(1 ); 

and 

e. Making any false or misleading statement of material fact to the Commission in 

violation of Section 6( c )(2), 7 U.S.C. § 9(2). 

109. Defendant Castilla 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 la(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(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; 

24 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 25 of 35

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. l(a) (2021)), agent or any other officer or employee of any 

person (as that term is defined in Section la(38) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ la(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). 

V. RESTITUTION, DISGORGEMENT, AND CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

A. Restitution 

110. Defendant Castilla shall pay restitution in the amount of two million six hundred 

eighty-seven thousand four hundred and forty dollars ($2,687,440) ("Restitution Obligation"), 

representing losses to persons proximately caused by such violations described above. Should 

Defendants DCAST and Five Traders, however, be found liable in connection with the 

Complaint and ordered to pay restitution for their misconduct, then the Restitution Obligation in 

this Consent Order will become joint and several with any restitution ordered against DCAST 

and Five Traders. 

25 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 26 of 35

111. If the Restitution Obligation is not paid immediately in full, post-judgment 

interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of 

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

the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

112. To effect payment of the Restitution Obligation and the distribution of any 

restitution payments to Defendant Castilla's customers/pool participants/clients, the Court 

appoints the National Futures Association ("NF A") as Monitor ("Monitor"). The Monitor shall 

receive restitution payments from Defendant Castilla and make distributions as set forth below. 

Because the Monitor is acting as an officer of this Court in performing these services, the NF A 

shall not be liable for any action or inaction arising from NF A's appointment as Monitor, other 

than actions involving fraud. 

113. Defendant Castilla shall make Restitution Obligation payments, and any postjudgment interest payments, under this Consent Order to the Monitor in the name "Defendant 

Castilla-SETTLEMENT/RESTITUTION Fund" and shall send such payments by electronic 

funds transfer, or by U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier's check, or bank 

money order, to the Office of Administration, National Futures Association, 300 South Riverside 

Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60606 under cover letter that identifies the paying Defendant 

and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendant 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. 

114. The Monitor shall oversee the Restitution Obligation and shall have the discretion 

to determine the manner of distribution of such funds in an equitable fashion to Defendant 

26 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 27 of 35

Castilla's customers/pool participants/clients identified by the Commission or may defer 

distribution until such time as the Monitor deems appropriate. In the event that the amount of 

Restitution Obligation payments to the Monitor are of a de minimis nature such that the Monitor 

determines that the administrative cost of making a distribution to eligible customers/pool 

participants/clients is impractical, the Monitor may, in its discretion, treat such restitution 

payments as civil monetary penalty payments, which the Monitor shall forward to the 

Commission following the instructions for civil monetary penalty payments set forth in Part 

V(C) below. 

115. Without waiver of Defendant Castilla's right to assert his privilege against selfincrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Defendant Castilla shall 

cooperate with the Monitor as appropriate to provide such information as the Monitor deems 

necessary and appropriate to identify Defendant Castilla's customers/pool participants/clients to 

whom the Monitor, in its sole discretion, may determine to include in any plan for distribution of 

any Restitution Obligation payments. Defendant Castilla shall execute any documents 

necessary to release funds that he has in any repository, bank, investment or other financial 

institution, wherever located, in order to make partial or total payment toward the Restitution 

Obligation. If Defendant Castilla asserts his privilege against self-incrimination in response to a 

request from the Monitor pursuant to this paragraph, Defendant Castilla, the Monitor, and 

Plaintiff shall meet-and-confer in an effort to resolve the issue without the need for court 

intervention. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue, the parties may seek appropriate relief 

from the Court pursuant to paragraph 133 of this Consent Order. 

116. The Monitor shall provide the Commission at the beginning of each calendar year 

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Defendant Castilla' s customers/pool 

27 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 28 of 35

participants/clients during the previous year. The Monitor shall transmit this report under a 

cover letter that identifies the name and docket number of this proceeding to the Chief Financial 

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

NW, Washington, D.C. 20581. 

117. The amounts payable to each customer, pool participant, or client shall not limit 

the ability of any customer, pool participant, or client from proving that a greater amount is owed 

from Defendant Castilla or any other person or entity, and nothing herein shall be construed in 

any way to limit or abridge the rights of any customer, pool participant, or client that exist under 

state or common law. 

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

participant, or client of Defendant Castilla 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 

Castilla to ensure continued compliance with any provision of this Consent Order and to hold 

Defendant Castilla in contempt for any violations of any provision of this Consent Order. 

119. To the extent that any funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for satisfaction of 

Defendant Castilla's Restitution Obligation, such funds shall be transferred to the Monitor for 

disbursement in accordance with the procedures set forth above. 

B. Disgorgement 

120. Defendant Castilla shall pay disgorgement in the amount of three million three 

hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($3,350,000) ("Disgorgement Obligation"), representing the 

gains received in connection with such violations. Should Defendants DCAST and Five Traders, 

however, be found liable in connection with the Complaint and ordered to pay disgorgement for 

28 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 29 of 35

their misconduct, then the Disgorgement Obligation in this Consent Order will become joint and 

several with any disgorgement ordered against DCAST and Five Traders. For amounts paid in 

satisfaction of the Restitution Obligation under the terms of this Consent Order, Defendant 

Castilla shall receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against his Disgorgement Obligation. 

121. If the Disgorgement Obligation is not paid in full immediately, then postjudgment interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the Disgorgement Obligation beginning 

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

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

122. Defendant Castilla shall pay his Disgorgement 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/AMK326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQRoom266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-amz-ar-cftc@faa.gov 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendant Castilla shall contact Tonia King or 

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

those instructions. Defendant Castilla shall accompany payment of the Disgorgement Obligation 

with a cover letter that identifies Defendant Castilla and the name and docket number of this 

proceeding. Defendant Castilla 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. 

29 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 30 of 35

C. Civil Monetary Penalty 

123. Defendant Castilla shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of three 

million dollars ($3,000,000) ("CMP Obligation"). If the CMP Obligation is not paid in full 

immediately, then post-judgment interest shall accrue on the unpaid portion of the CMP 

Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Consent Order and shall be determined by using 

the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961. 

124. Defendant Castilla 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 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. 

HQRoom266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-amz-ar-cftc@faa.gov 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendant Castilla shall contact Tonia King or 

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

those instructions. Defendant Castilla shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a 

cover letter that identifies Defendant Castilla and the name and docket number of this 

proceeding. Defendant Castilla 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. 

30 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 31 of 35

D. Provisions Related to Monetary Sanctions 

125. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission/CFTC or the Monitor of any 

partial payment of Defendant Castilla' s Restitution Obligation, Disgorgement 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. 

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

126. Until such time as Castilla satisfies in full his Restitution, Disgorgement, and 

CMP Obligations under this Consent Order, upon the commencement by or against Castilla of 

insolvency, receivership or bankrnptcy proceedings or any other proceedings for the settlement of 

Castilla's debts, all notices to creditors required to be furnished to the Commission under Title 11 

of the United States Code or other applicable law with respect to such insolvency, receivership 

bankruptcy or other proceedings, shall be sent to the address below: 

Secretary of the Commission 

Legal Division 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581 

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

except as set forth in paragraph 126, above, shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, 

as follows: 

Notice to Commission: 

Charles Marvine 

Deputy Director 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

31 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 32 of 35

Notice to Defendant Castilla: 

Damian Castilla, at an address he provides to the Commission within ten days of signing 

this Consent Order. 

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

128. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendant Castilla satisfies in full 

his Restitution Obligation, Disgorgement Obligation, and CMP Obligation as set forth in this 

Consent Order, Defendant Castilla 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. 

129. 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. 

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

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. 

13 I. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order or of any customer, pool 

participant, or client 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, pool participant, or client 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. 

32 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 33 of 35

132. Waiver of Service, and Acknowledgement: Defendant Castilla waives service of 

this Consent Order and agrees that entry of this Consent Order by the Court and filing with the 

Clerk of the Court will constitute notice to Defendant Castilla of its terms and conditions. 

Defendant Castilla further agrees to provide counsel for the Commission, within thirty days after 

this Consent Order is filed with the Clerk of Court, with an affidavit or declaration stating that 

Defendant Castilla has received and read a copy of this Consent Order. 

133. 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 Defendant Castilla to modify or for relief from the terms of this 

Consent Order. 

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

provisions of this Consent Order shall be binding upon the following persons who receive actual 

notice of this Consent Order, by personal service or otherwise: (1) Defendant Castilla; (2) any 

officer, agent, servant, employee, or attorney of Defendant Castilla; and (3) any other persons 

who are in active concert or participation with any persons described in subsections (1) and (2) 

above. 

135. 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. 

33 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 34 of 35

136. Contempt: Defendant Castilla understands that the terms of the Consent Order, 

except with respect to disgorgement or restitution, are enforceable through contempt 

proceedings, and that, in any such proceedings he may not challenge the validity of this Consent 

Order. 

137. Agreements and Undertakings: Defendant Castilla 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 Defendant Castilla forthwith and without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this __e.y u&~ekDA 

UNITED ST 

34 
Case 1:22-cv-21520-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 35 of 35

CONSENTED TO AND APPROVED BY: 

35 

Nicholas S. Sloey - Chief Trial Attorney 

Paul M. Flucke - Trial Attorney 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Telephone: (816) 960-7728 

Facsimile: (816) 960-775 l 

nsloey@cftc.gov 

pflucke@cftc.gov 

Dated ---------