7 U.S.C. § 6h
False self-representation as registered entity member prohibited
It shall be unlawful for any person falsely to represent such person to be a member of a registered entity or the representative or agent of such member, or to be a registrant under this chapter or the representative or agent of any registrant, in soliciting or handling any order or contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity in interstate commerce or for future delivery, or falsely to represent in connection with the handling of any such order or contract that the same is to be or has been executed on, or by or through a member of, any registered entity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1973–2009 · leading case: Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Sterling Trading Grp., Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Sterling Trading Grp., Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (S.D. Fla. 2009). “Count Four alleges that Defendants QIX and Stern violated 7 U.S.C. § 6h by falsely representing that QIX was a member of a registered entity and/or that QIX was a registrant under the Act.”
United States v. Thompson B. Sanders, 893 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1990). “§ 1343 and conspiring to violate 7 U.S.C. §§ 6h and 13. Counts two through six charged Mr.”
Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., 409 U.S. 289 (1973). “" Title 7 U. S. C. § 6h states: "It shall be unlawful for any person "(1) to conduct any office or place of business anywhere in the United States or its territories for the purpose of soliciting or accepting any orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future…”
Precious Metals Assocs., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 620 F.2d 900 (1st Cir. 1980). “The AU’s findings and recommendations were that: (1) appellants did not violate section 4h (7 U.S.C. § 6h) (illegal futures trading); (2) they did violate sections 4c(b) and 4c(c) (7 U.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Co Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc., a California Corp. Harold D. Goldstein & Michael Bradley Krivacek, 680 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1982). “We also hold that Co Petro violated section 4h(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6h(l) (1976). This section makes it illegal to conduct a futures business “if such orders, contracts, or dealings are executed or consummated otherwise than by or through a member of a contract market.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Co Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc., 502 F. Supp. 806 (C.D. Cal. 1980). “] 7 U.S.C. § 6h prohibits any person from “soliciting or accepting any orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, or [from] making or offering to make any contracts for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery,” or from conducting any…”
Galvin v. First Nat'l Monetary Corp., 624 F. Supp. 154 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “§§ 6b and 6h, (Count I); violations of 7 U.S.C. § 6h and Reg. § 30.-03, (Count II); common law fraud (Count III); and violations of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) 2-302 (Count IV).”
United States v. Sanders, 696 F. Supp. 327 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “7 U.S.C. § 6h (West Supp.1988). There is absolutely no indication that the prohibition only applies to “soliciting” or “handling” a customer’s order.”
United States v. Sanders, 688 F. Supp. 367 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “The indictment charges in Counts 3 through 6 a violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6h which, when combined with the penalty sections of the CEA, 7 U.”
First Nat'l Monetary Corp. & Michael Bivins v. A.J. Weinberger & Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 819 F.2d 1334 (1st Cir. 1987). “(CCH) ¶ 21,707 (April 29, 1983), holding that the leverage contracts traded by FNMC were actually off-exchange futures contracts which violated § 4h of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6h. The summary judgment decided the issue of liability only, and a hearing was held before the AU on June…”
Ping He (Hai Nam) Co. v. Nonferrous Metals (U.S.A.) Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 6h, 13(a)(2) (making it a felony punishable by a $1 million fine or 5-year’s imprisonment for any person falsely to represent himself or herself as registered); 7 U.”
Cont'l Bank, N.A. v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1993). “1987) (statements that defendant had “expertise” and that he would “pick good trades” not actionable deception under Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6h); Royal Business Machines, Inc.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 6h(l) — 3 cases
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Co Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc., a California Corp. Harold D. Goldstein & Michael Bradley Krivacek, 680 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1982). “We also hold that Co Petro violated section 4h(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6h(l) (1976). This section makes it illegal to conduct a futures business “if such orders, contracts, or dealings are executed or consummated otherwise than by or through a member of a contract market.”
Jarrett v. Kassel, 972 F.2d 1415 (6th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Sanders, 696 F. Supp. 327 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “7 U.S.C. § 6h (West Supp.1988). There is absolutely no indication that the prohibition only applies to “soliciting” or “handling” a customer’s order.”
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.