17 C.F.R. § 32.4
Fraud in connection with commodity option transactions
In or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, or the confirmation of the execution of, any commodity option transaction, it shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly:
(a) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person;
(b) To make or cause to be made to any other person any false report or statement thereof or cause to be entered for any person any false record thereof; or
(c) To deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means whatsoever.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Cary Oil Co. v. MG Refining & Mktg., Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Cary Oil Co. v. MG Refining & Mktg., Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “” ( 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (a), quoted in full at Pis.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. U. S. Metals Depository Co., 468 F. Supp. 1149 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “4(a), 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (a); and the Commission subsequently issued Rule 32.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. William C. Dunn & Delta Consultants, Inc., Delta Options, Ltd. & Nopkine Co., Ltd., 58 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1995). “See 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (limited exemption for commodity options “offered by a person which has a reasonable basis to believe that the option is offered to a producer, processor, commercial user or merchant .”
MG Refining & Mktg., Inc. v. Knight Enter., Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “The Customers’ Motion for Summary Judgment on MG’s Illegality Defense The Customers argue that MG’s illegality defense must fail as a matter of law because the flexies fit into one or more of the following three exceptions to § 4a: the “trade option” exception, see 17 C.F.R. §…”
Bd. of Trade v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 677 F.2d 1137 (7th Cir. 1982). “17 C.F.R. § 32.4 : Exemptions. (a) Except for the provisions of §§ 32.”
Myron v. Hauser, 673 F.2d 994 (8th Cir. 1982). “12 ( 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 , .12). . On April 25, 1975, soon after the Commission came into official existence, it published for public comment a proposed anti-fraud rule, 40 Fed.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Fin. Tree (E.D. Cal. 2022). “2 § 6c(b) (2018) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2021) (Count One) 3 Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Fingerhut (S.D. Fla. 2021). “4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (“Options Fraud”). a) Section 4c(b) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to offer to enter into, enter into, or confirm the execution of, any transaction involving any commodity regulated under the Act which is of the character of, or is commonly known…”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Caniff (N.D. Ill. 2020). “§ 6c(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 , which prohibit fraud in connection with commodity options transactions.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Ramos (N.D. Tex. 2021). “15 And it alleges that Ramos’s statements and actions were “willful” and by “any means whatsoever.”16 Therefore, the Commission established a viable claim for violations of 7 U.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Fin. Tree (E.D. Cal. 2020). “4 ( 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (2019)) apply to fraud in connection with 13 commodity options trading, such that the same misrepresentations and omissions that violate § 4b 14 in connection with futures trading also violate § 4c(b) and Regulation 32.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Montano (M.D. Fla. 2020). “4, 17 C.F.R. § 32.4 (Count I); (2) commodity trading advisor fraud in violation of CEA § 4o(1), as amended 7 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.