C.F.R. » Title 17 » CHAPTER I—COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION › PART 33—REGULATION OF COMMODITY OPTION TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE OPTIONS ON CONTRACTS OF SALE OF A COMMODITY FOR FUTURE DELIVERY

17 C.F.R. § 33.10

Fraud in connection with commodity option transactions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

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;

(c) To deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means whatsoever

in or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, the confirmation of the execution of, or the maintenance of, any commodity option transaction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Lee, 720 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Lee, 720 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 3× “10, 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 promulgated thereunder.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 310 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 8× “§ 6c(b), 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (a) and (c), 17 C.F.R. § 166.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Rosenberg, 85 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 4× “§§ 6b(a)(i)-(iii), 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (1999); (2) unlawfully converted Stollenwerck’s money in violation of 7 U.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Levy, 541 F.3d 1102 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 6c(b) 5 and 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (2005). 6 Specifically, the complaint alleged, among other things, that the Defendants “fraudulently solicited members of the public to open [accounts] by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts concerning .”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Wilshire Inv. Mgmt. Corp., 531 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2008). “§ 6c(b) (2000) and 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (2000), which make it unlawful for any person to “cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person” or to “deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means whatsoever” in commodity option transactions.”
In re NEXT Fin. Grp., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 263 (Tex. 2008). “2002) (referencing 17 C.F.R. 33.10(a)). Churning violates anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and SEC regulations.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Wilshire Inv. Mgmt. Corp., 407 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 3× “Specifically, the CFTC alleges that Defendants violated 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (a) & (c) (2003) which makes it unlawful for any person directly or indirectly: (a) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person; .”
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Arrington, 998 F. Supp. 2d 847 (D. Neb. 2014). · cites it 3× “§ 6c(a)(1); 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (repealed June 26, 2012).”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Mass Media Mktg., Inc., 297 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “The CFTC filed a complaint against Advertisers alleging that they used fraudulent advertisements and infomercials to solicit potential customers to invest in commodity options, which violated certain registration and record-retention regulations issued by the CFTC, 17 C.F.R. §…”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Risk Capital Trading Grp., Inc., 452 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Ga. 2006). · cites it 3× “§ 6c(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 , in soliciting customers to buy and sell commodity futures contracts and options on commodity futures contracts.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 173 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2001). · cites it 3× “§ 6c(b), 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (a) and (c), 17 C.F.R. § 166.”
Howard Miller v. Commodities Futures Trading Comm'n, 197 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “10, 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 . Without further analysis, the ALJ ordered Miller to cease and desist from further violations, revoked his registration as an AP, banned him forever from commodity options trading and imposed a civil penalty of $200,000.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
17 C.F.R. § 33.10(a): 1 case
In re NEXT Fin. Grp., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 263 (Tex. 2008). “2002) (referencing 17 C.F.R. 33.10(a)). Churning violates anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and SEC regulations.”
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.