7 U.S.C. § 60
Penalties for violations
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1939–2018 · leading case: United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kratville, 796 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2015).
United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kratville, 796 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2015). “§§ 6b(a)(l)(A)-(C) and 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C); committed commodity-pool fraud, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 60 (1) (2006) and 17 C.F.R. § 4.”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,706 Barry Saxe v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., Scott A. Howard & Hanger Assocs., Inc., 789 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1986). “7 U.S.C. § 60 makes it unlawful for a commodity trading advisor to: (A) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud a client or participant or prospective client or participant; or (2) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a…”
United States v. Vincent R. Perrin, Jr., David L. Levy & Duffy J. Lafont, Jr., 580 F.2d 730 (5th Cir. 1978). “7 U.S.C. §§ 60 , 85 . 47 U.S.C. § 509 . Nardello could not have been charged under Pennsylvania extortion statute because Pennsylvania defined extortion as did the common law, i.”
United States v. Nelson, 606 F. Supp. 1378 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). “The defendants misread the indictment by claiming that a violation of 7 U.S.C. § 60 is charged. In addition, the Government has represented that there is a typographical error contained in the indictment, in that the indictment charges a violation of 7 U.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weinberg, 287 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “ile acting as a CPO, as defined in Section la(4) of the Act a) employing a device, scheme or artifice to defraud pool participants and prospective pool participants, b) engaging in a transaction, practice or course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit upon pool…”
766347 Ontario Ltd. v. Zurich Capital Markets Inc., 249 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 2003). “Count Three alleges that Defendants aided and abetted a commodity pool fraud in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 60 and 25(a)(1). Count Four alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties.”
Lamarco v. United States, 336 F. Supp. 3d 152 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “§ 1343 and one count of commodities fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 60 (1). Pursuant to a Plea Agreement, the Petitioner waived his right to file an appeal or otherwise challenge his conviction or sentence via 28 U.”
S & a Farms, Inc. v. Farms. Com, Inc., 678 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2012). “com on its fraud claim under 7 U.S.C. § 60 (1)(B) and its Iowa breach of fiduciary duty claim.”
Ginsburg v. Agora, Inc., 915 F. Supp. 733 (D. Maryland 1995). “” 7 U.S.C. § 60 (1). Plaintiffs only hope to state a claim under this section, however, depends on his ability to establish that Defendants were “commodity trading advisors.”
766347 Ontario Ltd. v. Zurich Capital Markets, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Ill. 2003). “The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim alleging control person liability in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants aided and abetted a commodity pool fraud in violation of the Commodity…”
Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. United States, 105 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1939). “7 U.S.C.A. § 60 '8c(7) (C). Violators of the order are, on conviction, subject to a fine of from $50 to $500 for each violation, and each day during which a violation continues is deemed to be a separate violation.”
United States v. Stout, 499 F. Supp. 602 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “2d 273 (1980) (violations of mail fraud statute and the Commodities Futures Trading Act, 7 U.S.C. § 60 ); United States v. Weatherspoon, 581 F.”
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.