UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SWAPNIL REGE and SWAPSTAR CAPITAL 

LLC,

Defendants,

 and

REEMA REGE,

Relief Defendant.

Case No. 21-CV ________

ECF Case

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY 

PENALTIES UNDER THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”), 140 

Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10005, by and through its attorneys, alleges as follows

against the following Defendants and Relief Defendant, whose names and last known addresses 

are set forth below:

a. Swapnil Rege (Defendant)

6 Forest Ct N

Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852-3124

b. SwapStar Capital, LLC (Defendant)

1 Hawthorne Rd

North Brunswick, NJ 08902

c. Reema Rege (Relief Defendant)

6 Forest Ct N

Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852-3124

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 1
2

I. SUMMARY

1. From at least September 2019 to the present (the “Relevant Period”), Defendant 

Swapnil Rege, (“Defendant Rege”), both individually and through his company SwapStar 

Capital LLC (“Defendant SwapStar,” and together with Defendant Rege, “Defendants”), 

solicited and received funds from at least 25 individuals (together, “Account Holders”) based on 

promises to pay fixed rates of return on unsecured loans or for the stated purpose of making 

investments in securities. Defendants executed written “Investment Advisory Agreements” or 

“Private Loan Agreements” with many of the Account Holders, which typically provided that 

Defendants were fiduciaries for the Account Holder, that Defendants would pay a fixed rate of 

interest during an agreed-upon period in exchange for the loan or investment, and that 

Defendants were authorized to make investments on behalf of the Account Holders. Defendants

then used a portion of the solicited funds to actively trade commodity futures and commodity 

options through accounts Defendants owned or that were nominally owned by Defendant Rege’s

spouse and/or his father, but were controlled by Defendant Rege. Defendants also took a portion 

of the funds and misappropriated them, using those funds for personal expenses and to repay 

other Account Holders to whom they owed money. Finally, Defendants failed to fully disclose 

to the Account Holders that Defendant Rege was barred from executing any commodity futures 

or commodity options trades for a period of three years, pursuant to a July 18, 2019 Commission 

order that was entered in settlement of fraud charges (“2019 Order”). As a result, Defendants

have engaged in, are engaging in and, unless restrained and enjoined will continue to engage in, 

acts and practices which constitute violations of the 2019 Order.

2. In 2019, the Commission filed an administrative action against Defendant Rege 

for violating Section 6(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), 

and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2018), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2018), of the Commission 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 2
3

Regulations (“Regulations”) promulgated thereunder. The Commission found that Defendant

Rege engaged in a fraudulent scheme to mismark the valuations for certain interest rate swaps on 

the books of his employer, a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) located in Connecticut. 

Defendant Rege mismarked the valuations in an attempt to artificially inflate the profits of the 

CPO, in order to meet performance metrics that would qualify him for an (artificially inflated) 

performance bonus. As a result of the mismarking scheme, Defendant Rege caused the CPO to 

overstate its reported performance to pool participants, which in turn resulted in overstated 

management fees. The valuations could not be and were not realized by the CPO. Further, 

Defendant Rege engaged in numerous steps to conceal his misconduct. In re Rege, CFTC No. 

19-14, 2019 WL 4267850, at *1-3 (July 18, 2019).

3. Defendant Rege agreed to settle the matter simultaneously with the Commission’s 

filing and consented to the entry of the 2019 Order, which found that Defendant Rege violated 

Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2018). Id. at *4.

4. As part of the settlement, Defendant Rege was ordered to cease and desist from 

further violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3) and to pay a civil 

monetary penalty in the amount of $100,000. Defendant Rege also agreed to pay disgorgement 

of $600,000 plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $49,170.84, representing the gains 

received in connection with his violations. Id. at *5.

5. In addition, Defendant Rege was prohibited from, directly or indirectly, engaging 

in trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is defined in Section 

1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §1a(40) (2012)), for a period of: (a) at least three years after the date 

of entry of the 2019 Order; and (b) until after payment and satisfaction in full of the 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 3
4

disgorgement and civil monetary penalty amounts and any applicable interest, and all registered 

entities were to refuse him trading privileges during that period. Id.

6. Finally, Defendant Rege agreed to cooperate fully and expeditiously with the 

Commission, including the Commission’s Division of Enforcement, in any current or future 

Commission investigation or action relating to the subject matter of the 2019 Order. Id.

7. In flagrant disregard of the 2019 Order, in or about September 2019, Defendants

solicited funds from Account Holders for the represented purpose of investing in securities on 

their behalf. In soliciting the Account Holders, Defendants made material misrepresentations 

and omissions, including: (1) Account Holder funds would be used for investment purposes; 

(2) Account Holder funds would be invested in securities; (3) Account Holders would receive a 

fixed monthly, quarterly, or annual return, in some cases as high as 40% to 60%; and 

(4) Account Holders could redeem their funds immediately or on short notice. In making these 

representations, Defendants failed to disclose that they were soliciting funds, at least in part, to 

trade commodity futures and commodity options. Defendant Rege also failed to disclose that he

was barred from trading any commodity futures or commodity options as a result of the 2019 

Order.

8. In addition, during the Relevant Period, Defendants misappropriated Account 

Holders’ funds for their personal benefit, including to pay for personal expenses and to make 

payments to other investors and lenders in a manner akin to a Ponzi scheme. Defendants used 

Account Holders’ funds in this manner without disclosure to, or authorization from, Account 

Holders.

9. Defendants have not returned all funds to Account Holders.

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 4
5

10. By the aforementioned conduct, Defendants have engaged, are engaging in, or are

about to engage in practices that violate the provisions of the Act and Regulations, including:

Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2020).

11. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), the 

Commission brings this action to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and to compel 

compliance with the Act and Order. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties 

and remedial ancillary relief, including but not limited to, trading and registration bans, 

restitution, disgorgement, and such other relief as this Court may deem necessary or appropriate.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

(2018) (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018), which provides that 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. In addition, Section 6c(a) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) (2018), provides that district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions brought 

by the Commission for injunctive relief and to enforce compliance with the Act whenever it shall 

appear to 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. 

13. Venue. Venue properly lies with the Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e), because Defendants are found in, inhabit, or transact business in this 

District, and because the acts and practices in violation of the Act and of the 2019 Order have 

occurred within this District, among other places. 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 5
6

III. THE PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the 

Act and the Regulations. The Commission maintains its Eastern Regional Office at 140 

Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10005.

15. Defendant Swapnil Rege is an individual who resides in Monmouth Junction, 

New Jersey. Previously, Mr. Rege was a Portfolio Manager on the U.S. Rates Desk at the CPO 

from June 2015 until his termination in April 2017. Defendant Rege has never been registered 

with the Commission in any capacity.

16. Defendant SwapStar Capital LLC is a limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in North Brunswick, New Jersey. It was founded in January 2019 by 

Defendant Rege and he is the sole owner. SwapStar Capital LLC has never been registered with 

the Commission in any capacity.

17. Relief Defendant Reema Rege is an individual who resides in Monmouth 

Junction, New Jersey and is the spouse of Swapnil Rege. Relief Defendant Rege has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity.

IV. OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES

18. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) is a commodity exchange operated 

by the CME Group Inc. (“CME Group”), located in Chicago, Illinois, with its servers located in 

the Northern District of Illinois. At all relevant times, the CME was a designated contract 

market under Section 5 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7 (2018), and a “registered entity” under Section

1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40) (2018). CME lists for trading E-mini S&P 500 Futures, Emini Nasdaq 100 Futures, and E-mini Russell 2000 Index Futures, among other futures and 

options contracts. 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 6
7

19. Commodity Exchange, Inc. (“COMEX”) is a commodity exchange which also at 

all relevant times was a designated contract market under 7 U.S.C. § 7 (2018), and a “registered 

entity” under 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40) (2018). COMEX lists for trading gold futures, silver futures, and 

other precious metals contracts. COMEX’s headquarters is located in New York, New York. 

COMEX is owned and operated by the CME Group.

V. FACTS

A. The 2019 Order

20. On July 18, 2019, the Commission instituted proceedings against Defendant Rege 

pursuant to Section 6(c) and (d) of the Act. Defendant Rege was charged with engaging in a 

fraudulent scheme to mismark the valuations for certain interest rate swaps on the books of his 

employer, a commodity pool operator, in violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) 

(2012), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2018). In re Rege, at *4.

21. On the same day, the Commission accepted Defendant Rege’s offer of settlement, 

and issued the 2019 Order against Defendant Rege which, among other things, ordered 

Defendant Rege to pay a civil monetary penalty of $100,000, and to comply with his agreement 

to pay disgorgement of $600,000 plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $49,170.84, among 

other sanctions and undertakings. Id. *5.

22. The 2019 Order also: (1) found that, during the Relevant Period, Defendant Rege 

violated Section 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 

17 C.F.R. § 180.l(a)(l)-(3)(2018); and (2) ordered that Rege cease and desist from violating 

Section 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.§ 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 180.l(a)(l)-(3), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.l(a)(l)-(3) (2018). Id. *4.

23. In addition, the 2019 Order prohibited Defendant Rege from, directly or 

indirectly, engaging in trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 7
8

defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §1a(40) (2012)), for a period of (a) at least three 

years after the date of entry of the 2019 Order; and (b) until after payment and satisfaction in full 

of the disgorgement and civil monetary penalty amounts and any applicable interest, and all 

registered entities were to refuse him trading privileges during that period. Id. *5.

24. More specifically, Defendant Rege agreed that he would not, for that period: (a) 

enter into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that term is defined in Regulation 

1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2018)1

), for Defendant Rege’s own personal account or for any account in 

which Defendant Rege had a direct or indirect interest; (b) have any commodity interests traded 

on his behalf; (c) control or direct 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; 

(d) solicit, receive, or accept any funds from any person for the purpose of purchasing or selling 

any commodity interests; (e) apply for registration or claim exemption from registration with the 

Commission in any capacity, or engage 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) (2018); and/or (f) act as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 

3.l(a), 17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2018)), 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) (2012)), registered, required to be 

registered, or exempted from registration with the Commission except as provided for in 

Regulation 4.14(a)(9). Id. *6-7.

B. Defendants’ Solicitation of Account Holders

25. During the Relevant Period, Defendants solicited funds from at least 25 Account 

Holders for the purpose of making investments, including investments in the securities markets. 

 1 Pursuant to Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. §1.3 (2020), the term “commodity interests” includes, among 

other things, commodity futures and commodity options contracts.

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 8
9

26. Defendants solicited Account Holders in person and through phone and/or e-mail

communications.

27. Defendants executed written “Investment Advisory” or “Private Loan 

Agreements” agreements with many Account Holders. Some of these agreements were in 

Defendant Rege’s name individually, and some were in the name of Defendant SwapStar. 

Through these agreements, Defendants promised to pay fixed rates of return in either the form of 

unsecured loans or through making investments.

28. As part of the solicitations, Defendants falsely represented to Account Holders 

that: (1) Account Holder funds would be used for investment purposes; (2) Account Holder 

funds would be invested in securities, including equities; (3) Account Holders would receive a 

fixed monthly, quarterly, or annual return, in some cases as high as 40% to 60%; and (4) 

Account Holders could redeem their funds immediately or on short notice. 

29. Defendants did not use Account Holders’ funds solely for the purpose of investing 

or purchasing securities as they had represented to the Account Holders. Instead, from at least 

April 2021 to the present, Defendants used a portion of the funds in these accounts to trade 

futures and options on a registered entity, including E-mini S&P 500 and E-mini Nasdaq 100 

futures and options. Defendants failed to advised Account Holders that at least a portion of their 

funds would be used to invest in commodity interests.

30. Defendants knowingly or recklessly made these material misrepresentations and 

omissions to induce Account Holders to lend to or invest with them, and Account Holders relied 

upon these material misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to lend or invest.

31. Defendants also misappropriated Account Holders’ funds to pay for personal 

expenses. Further, Defendants also misappropriated Account Holders’ funds to transfer among

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 9
10

other Account Holders in a manner akin to a Ponzi scheme. Defendants used Account Holders’ 

funds in this manner without disclosure to, or authorization from, Account Holders.

32. In their solicitation of prospective Account Holders, Defendants did not disclose 

that they intended to use Account Holders’ funds to trade commodity futures and commodity 

options, to pay for personal expenses, or to pay returns to other Account Holders.

33. Further, Defendants failed to disclose that Defendant Rege was barred from 

trading any commodity futures or commodity options products as a result of the 2019 Order. 

34. At various times during the Relevant Period, one or more Account Holders asked 

Defendant Rege about the 2019 Order. Defendant Rege failed to fully disclose the scope of the 

2019 Order.

C. Defendants’ Trading of Commodity Futures and Commodity Options in Violation 

of 2019 Order

35. During the Relevant Period, Defendants executed trades on behalf of at least 25 

Account Holders.

36. Defendants directed many Account Holders to provide Defendant Rege with a 

limited power of authority (“POA”) to their accounts at other financial institutions, including 

accounts held by Futures Commission Merchants that were used for trading commodity futures 

and commodity options. Using the limited POA, Defendant Rege logged into the accounts as 

himself, his spouse, or his father (i.e., rather than using the Account Holders’ usernames and 

passwords) and executed trades, including trades in commodity interests.

37. From approximately 2017 or 2018 through approximately September 2019, 

Defendant Rege used a joint account that he held with his spouse at Fidelity Brokerage Services 

LLC (“Fidelity”) to execute trades. This account held a limited POA with approximately 15 or 

20 other accounts. In or around September 2019, after entry of the 2019 Order, Fidelity 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 10
11

terminated the limited POA on the joint account held by Defendant Rege and his spouse, and 

Fidelity also cancelled accounts held by various Account Holders. Several Account Holders

asked Defendant Rege why Fidelity cancelled the accounts, but Defendant Rege told them to call 

Fidelity because he did not know why.

38. After Fidelity terminated the limited POA on Defendant Rege’s joint account, 

many of the Account Holders transferred their accounts to TD Ameritrade Inc. (“TDA”), which 

also allowed trading through a limited POA. In addition, several individuals transferred funds 

totaling approximately $600,000 to $700,000 to Defendant Rege’s bank account, and asked him 

to transfer the funds to a Fidelity account that Defendant Rege held individually, and then trade 

their funds using his own account. 

39. In October 2019, three months after the 2019 Order, Defendant Rege opened an 

account with TDA in the name of his spouse, Relief Defendant Reema Rege. Defendant Rege 

provided his own email address and phone number as contact information on the account. The 

purpose of the account was to continue trading for Account Holders for whom he had traded at 

Fidelity. A number of the Account Holders provided a limited POA to Defendant Rege’s 

spouse; others requested that Defendant Rege return their funds and he did so. By mid-2020, 

approximately 15-20 Account Holders had provided Defendant Rege with a limited POA at 

TDA.

40. From approximately October 2019 until at least January 2021, Defendant Rege 

also executed trades for himself, using the same TDA account in the name of his spouse that 

contained funds provided by other Account Holders.

41. In August 2020, Defendant Rege opened an Interactive Brokers LLC (“Interactive 

Brokers”) account in the name of his spouse, Relief Defendant Reema Rege. The email address 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 11
12

on the account opening documents contained a slightly modified version of Defendant Rege’s 

name. The account was funded in March 2021.

42. Following the closure of Defendant Rege’s individual Fidelity account and return 

of some funds at the request of certain Account Holders, Defendant Rege transferred the

remaining Account Holder funds to accounts at TDA and Interactive Brokers.

43. In August 2020, a TDA joint account owned by Account Holder-1 (“AH-1”) and 

AH-1’s spouse received a total of $660,000 in internal transfers from the TDA account owned by 

Defendant Rege’s spouse. The AH-1 joint account also received a $30,000 wire from a bank

account titled “Swapnil Rege.” AH-1 shared login credentials on his account with Defendant 

Rege to allow him to execute trades, and Defendant Rege executed trades in the account. The 

combined funds in this account were used to actively trade commodity futures contracts, among 

other products. 

44. In September 2020, AH-1 opened an account with Interactive Brokers in his own 

name and another account under a corporate name that was associated with AH-1’s email 

address. AH-1 provided Defendant Rege with access to these accounts as well to allow him to 

execute trades, and Defendant Rege executed commodity futures contracts in AH-1’s corporate 

account.

45. In December 2020, a TDA joint account held by Account Holder-2 (“AH-2”) and 

his spouse received a series of internal transfers of various stocks from Relief Defendant Reema 

Rege’s account valued at approximately $200,000; in January 2021, the AH-2 joint account 

received $100,000 in cash from Relief Defendant Reema Rege’s account. The combined funds 

were used to actively trade commodity futures contracts, among other products.

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 12
13

46. In December 2020, Account Holder-3 (“AH-3”) and his spouse opened a TDA 

joint tenants account; Account Holder-4 (“AH-4”) opened a TDA individual account; and 

Account Holder-5 (“AH-5”) and his spouse opened a TDA joint tenants accounts. 

47. In February 2021, Defendant Rege opened an individual TDA account in the 

name of his father. Defendant Rege’s father also held an account with another Futures 

Commission Merchant that was used to trade futures products. The TDA account under 

Defendant Rege’s father’s name listed an external bank account on file that appears to be 

associated with Defendant Rege, and had an email address that contains a slightly modified 

version of Defendant’s name. 

48. The AH-4 and AH-5 accounts received internal transfers or wire deposits from the 

account held by Defendant Rege’s father during June to October 2021 totaling $130,000. The 

AH-4 and AH-5 accounts also received wire deposits from “Swapnil J. Rege” totaling $45,500.

49. Some or all of these TDA accounts, and others held by Account Holders, were

“linked” to the account of Defendant Rege’s spouse, which allowed a user to access multiple 

accounts with a single user ID and password. In this manner, Defendant Rege used his spouse’s 

account to access and execute trades, including trades of commodity futures products, in the 

Account Holders’ accounts.

50. In or around the Spring of 2021, TDA sent letters to Account Holders notifying 

them that the POA on the account in the name of Relief Defendant Reema Rege was terminated.

51. In March 2021, Defendant Rege closed the TDA account in the name of his 

spouse, Relief Defendant Reema Rege.

52. Between April and July 2021, there were five corporate accounts opened with 

Interactive Brokers associated with AH-1’s email address, and one IRA account affiliated with 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 13
14

another individual with the same last name as AH-1. At least two of these accounts were used 

for trading commodity interests on various dates between April 2021 and September 2021. 

Defendant Rege had access to and executed trades in these accounts.

53. In addition, from April 2021 through September 2021, Defendant Rege accessed 

the Interactive Brokers account in the name of Relief Defendant Reema Rege to actively trade 

futures products, including E-mini S&P 500 and E-mini Nasdaq 100 futures and options, among 

other products. As such, Defendant Rege traded commodity interests on or subject to the rules of 

a CFTC-registered entity, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

54. Defendants never provided Account Holders with account statements referencing 

their trading of funds in commodity futures and commodity options.

D. Defendants Misappropriated Account Holders’ Funds

55. During the Relevant Period, Defendants failed to achieve sufficient profits from 

trading commodity futures and commodity options (or other trading) necessary to meet the fixed 

rates of returns promised to the Account Holders. As a result, Defendants used funds from 

certain Account Holders to pay back other Account Holders in a manner akin to a Ponzi scheme. 

56. Defendants also misappropriated Account Holders’ funds for personal use and 

expenses. 

57. In or about July and August 2021, Defendants transferred funds obtained from 

Account Holders to Relief Defendant Reema Rege’s Interactive Brokers account. Relief 

Defendant Reema Rege was not legally entitled and had no legitimate claim to those funds.

58. One or more Account Holders have demanded the return of their funds invested 

with or loaned to Defendants, but have been unable to access their funds.

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 14
15

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

COUNT ONE

FRAUD BY DECEPTIVE DEVICE OR CONTRIVANCE – VIOLATION OF 

SECTION 6(c)(1) OF THE ACT, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018) AND REGULATION 

180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2020)

59. Paragraphs 1 through 58 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

60. 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) makes it unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to:

[U]se 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 such 

rules and regulations as the Commission shall promulgate by not later than 

1 year after [July 21, 2010, the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act] . . . .

61. 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a) provides, in part:

It shall be 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; (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 . . . .

62. During the Relevant Period, as described above, Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3) by, among other things, in connection with swaps, 

contracts of sale of commodities in interstate commerce, or for future delivery, making or 

attempting to make untrue or misleading statements of material fact or omitting to state or 

attempting to omit material facts necessary in order to make statements made not untrue or 

misleading, such as the following: (1) Account Holder funds would be used for investment 

purposes; (2) Account Holder funds would be invested in securities, including equities; (3)

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 15
16

Account Holders would receive a fixed monthly, quarterly, or annual return, in some cases as 

high as 40% to 60%; (4) Account Holders could redeem their funds immediately or on short 

notice; and (5) failing to disclose that Defendant Rege was barred from trading any commodity 

interests as a result of the 2019 Order. Defendants intentionally or recklessly made these 

material misrepresentations and omissions to induce Account Holders to lend to or invest with 

them, and Account Holders relied upon these material misrepresentations and omissions in 

deciding to lend or invest.

63. During the Relevant Period, as described above, Defendants also violated 

7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3) by, among other things, using funds solicited 

from Account Holders to trade commodity futures for personal benefit, including to pay for 

personal expenses and to pay returns to other Account Holders in a manner akin to a Ponzi 

scheme.

64. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described above intentionally or 

recklessly.

65. Defendant Rege committed the acts, omissions, and/or failures alleged herein 

within the scope of his employment, agency, or office with Defendant SwapStar. Therefore, 

Defendant SwapStar is liable under Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2018), 

and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2020), as principal for Defendant Rege’s acts, omissions, or 

failures as alleged herein.

66. Each act of: (1) using or employing, or attempting to use or employ, a 

manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) making, or attempting to make, untrue or 

misleading statements of material fact, or omitting to state material facts necessary to make the 

statements not untrue or misleading; and (3) engaging, or attempting to engage, in any act, 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 16
17

practice, or course of business, which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any 

person, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and 

distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)–(3).

COUNT TWO

VIOLATION OF THE COMMISSION’S 2019 ORDER 

67. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 58 are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

68. On 2019, the Commission entered the 2019 Order, which required Defendant

Rege to cease and desist from violating Section 6(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–

(3), and imposed other obligations on Defendant Rege as further described at paragraphs 21

through 24 above.

69. Following entry of the 2019 Order and during the Relevant Period, Defendant

Rege violated the 2019 Order by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through 58

above, by continuing to trade on or subject to the rules of any registered entity in violation of the 

cease and desist provisions of the 2019 Order. 

70. Each violation of the Commission’s 2019 Order, including but not limited to 

those specifically alleged herein, constitutes a separate and distinct violation of the 2019 Order.

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as authorized by 

Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), and pursuant to its own equitable powers, enter:

A. Orders of preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from 

violating the Commission’s Order of July 18, 2019, and from violating Section 

6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2018), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)–(3), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1)–(3) (2020); 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 17
18

B. An order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants and any of their affiliates, 

agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and persons in active 

concert with them from:

1) Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that term is 

defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2020)), for Defendants’ own 

personal accounts or for any account in which Defendants have a direct or 

indirect interest; 

2) Having any commodity interests traded on Defendants’ behalf; 

3) 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; 

4) Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the purpose 

of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

5) Applying for registration or claim exemption from registration with the 

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

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2020); and/or 

6) Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.l(a), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 3.1 (a) (2020)), 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) (2018)), 

registered, required to be registered, or exempted from registration with the 

Commission except as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9).

C. A civil penalty against Defendants in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed 

by Section 6c(d)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1) (2018), as adjusted for inflation 

pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 

2015, Pub. L. 114-74, tit. VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599–600, see Regulation 143.8, 

17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2020), for each violation of the Act and Regulations, as described 

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 18
19

herein; 

D. An order prohibiting Defendants from trading on or subject to the rules of any entity 

registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; 

E. An order directing Defendants and Relief Defendant and any successors thereof, to 

disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, all benefits received 

from the acts or practices which constituted violations of the Act, as described herein, 

and interest thereon;

F. An order directing Defendants and Relief Defendants to make full restitution to every 

lender or investor whose funds were received by them as a result of acts and practices 

which constituted violations of the Act, as described herein, and interest thereon from 

the date of such violations; and 

G. Such other and further equitable or remedial ancillary relief as the Court may deem 

appropriate, including costs and attorneys’ fees.

* * *

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 19
20

VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Dated: October 26, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

COMMODITY FUTURES 

 TRADING COMMISSION

Manal M. Sultan

Deputy Director

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Division of Enforcement

By: /s/ Patryk Chudy

Patryk Chudy, Chief Trial Attorney

Benjamin J. Rankin, Trial Attorney (pro hac 

vice admission application to be filed)

COMMODITY FUTURES

 TRADING COMMISSION

140 Broadway, 19th Floor

New York, NY 10005

Phone: (646) 746-9700

Fax: (646) 746-9938

pchudy@cftc.gov

brankin@cftc.gov

Case 3:21-cv-19337 Document 1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 20