Opinion ID: 2994990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The CFTC’s Standard of Review

Text: Bernstein first argues that 7 U.S.C. sec. 21(i) requires de novo fact finding, rather than the weight of the evidencereview that the CFTC chose. As an initial matter, we note that Bernstein does not precisely define what he believes de novo fact finding to entail. However, we infer from his briefs that he understands de novo fact finding to require not that the CFTC draw its own inferences from the facts found by the NFA, but that the CFTC set aside the facts found by the NFA in favor of making its own determination, possibly through the admission of additional evidence that was not presented to the NFA. Bernstein’s argument in favor of his version of de novo review rests upon sec. 21(i), which states: (1) In a proceeding to review a final disciplinary action taken by a registered futures association against a member thereof or a person associated with a member, after appropriate notice and opportunity for a hearing (which hearing may consist solely of consideration of the record before the association and opportunity for the presentation of supporting reasons to affirm, modify, or set aside the sanction imposed by the association)-- (A) if the Commission finds that-- (i) the member . . . has engaged in the acts or practices . . . that the association has found the member . . . to have engaged in . . .; (ii) the acts or practices . . . are in violation of the rules of the association . . .; and (iii) such rules are, and were applied in a manner, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the Commission, by order, shall so declare and, as appropriate, affirm the sanction imposed by the association . . . .