Release: 4020-97 (Civ ---)

For Release:May 8, 1997

**CFTC CHARGES MASS MEDIA MARKETING INC., COMMODITY REFERRAL SERVICE    INC., AND ROLANDO NANASCA, ALL OF FLORIDA, WITH RUNNING FRAUDULENT    ADVERTISEMENTS AND INFOMERCIALS TO GENERATE SALES LEADS AND REFERRALS FOR    COMMODITIES BROKERS**

**CFTC Seeks Preliminary Injunction Halting the Miami-Based**

**Defendants' Alleged Violations of Federal Commodity Law**

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today    announced the filing of a three-count civil injunctive action in the U.S.    District Court for the Southern District of Florida charging **Mass Media    Marketing, Inc.** (Mass Media), **Commodity Referral Service, Inc.**,    and **Rolando Nanasca** -- all of Miami, Florida -- with violations of    the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the *Commodity Exchange Act    (CEA)* and CFTC regulations. Nanasca is president and principal of both    firms, which are Florida corporations. None of the defendants has ever been    registered in any capacity with the CFTC.

**The First CFTC Action Filed to Halt Lead Generation and**

**Referrals Through Allegedly Fraudulent Infomercials**

This is the first case filed by the CFTC to halt allegedly fraudulent    advertisements and infomercials used to generate and refer sales leads to    introducing brokers.

The CFTC complaint alleges that the defendants have generated    telemarketing leads through fraudulent 60-second advertisements and    30-minute infomercials that tout heating oil, unleaded gasoline, and other    commodity options as a high profit and low risk investment. These    advertisements and infomercials have appeared on television stations    throughout the United States and instruct viewers who desire more    information to call a toll- free telephone number that appears on the    television screen. The defendants collect the names and telephone numbers    of viewers who call the toll-free number (leads) and then sell these leads    to entities that telemarket commodity options.

The CFTC complaint further alleges that the defendants have engaged in    fraud by claiming that presently known market conditions and predictable    price trends that affect the spot market price of a commodity increase the    likelihood of profiting from options on that commodity's futures contract    and decrease the risks associated with such options. For example, the    defendants' advertisements and infomercials frequently claim that    predictable seasonal changes in demand that generally characterize the spot    market for heating oil and unleaded gasoline increase the likelihood of    profiting from the purchase of options on heating oil and unleaded gasoline    futures contracts. Such claims are fraudulent, the CFTC alleges, because    the premium price of a commodity option and the price of the option's    underlying futures contract already take into account all presently known    market conditions, such as predictable seasonal changes in the demand for a    commodity.

**CFTC Registration/Records Violations Also Alleged Against    Defendants**

The CFTC complaint also alleges that the defendants have violated the    registration provisions of the CEA and the CFTC regulations and that    defendant Nanasca has failed to register as an associated person of both    firms.

Finally, the complaint alleges that Mass Media and Nanasca have failed    to maintain records required by CFTC regulations.

**
**CFTC Enforcement Director: Halting Fraud at its Source**
**

According to CFTC Division of Enforcement Director Geoffrey Aronow:    "This case is an effort to halt fraud at its source. These advertisements    and infomercials are deceptive door-openers, luring unsophisticated    investors through a false picture of the commodities markets, and then    selling their names to brokerage firms."

In its litigation against the defendants, the CFTC is seeking    preliminary and permanent civil injunctions in addition to other remedial    relief, including restitution to investors. The complaint also seeks a    civil monetary penalty against each defendant of $110,000 or triple the    monetary gain to the defendant, whichever is greater, for each violation of    the CEA.

**
# # #
**