7 U.S.C. § 6o

Fraud and misrepresentation by commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators, and associated persons

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) It shall be unlawful for a commodity trading advisor, associated person of a commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, or associated person of a commodity pool operator, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly—(A) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or participant or prospective client or participant; or(B) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or participant or prospective client or participant.(2) It shall be unlawful for any commodity trading advisor, associated person of a commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, or associated person of a commodity pool operator registered under this chapter to represent or imply in any manner whatsoever that such person has been sponsored, recommended, or approved, or that such person’s abilities or qualifications have in any respect been passed upon, by the United States or any agency or officer thereof. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a statement that a person is registered under this chapter as a commodity trading advisor, associated person of a commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, or associated person of a commodity pool operator, if such statement is true in fact and if the effect of such registration is not misrepresented.(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, § 4o, as added Pub. L. 93–463, title II, § 205(a), Oct. 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 1399; amended Pub. L. 95–405, § 10, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 870; Pub. L. 97–444, title II, § 214, Jan. 11, 1983, 96 Stat. 2305.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1983—Par. (1). Pub. L. 97–444 made the antifraud prohibition applicable to an associated person of a commodity trading advisor or a commodity pool operator.

Par. (2). Pub. L. 97–444 made the misrepresentation prohibition applicable to an associated person of a commodity training advisor or a commodity pool operator, authorized registration statements of such persons, and substituted “such person” and “such person’s abilities” for “he” before “has been sponsored” and “his abilities”, respectively.

1978—Par. (1). Pub. L. 95–405 struck out “registered under this chapter” after “pool operator”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1983 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–444 effective Jan. 11, 1983, see section 239 of Pub. L. 97–444, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–405 effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 28 of Pub. L. 95–405, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 418 of Pub. L. 93–463, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 102 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Cross v. Anthony Vartuli, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Avco Fin. Corp., J. Michael Gent, 228 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Cross v. Anthony Vartuli, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Avco Fin. Corp., J. Michael Gent, 228 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 11× “Count II charged the defendants with fraud by a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) and fraudulent advertising under Section 4o (1) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6o (1). Count III charged the defendants with having failed to register AVCO as a CTA as required by Section 4m(l) of the CEA,…”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. JBW Capital, LLC, 812 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “§ 6b(a)(l), a general fraud provision, which makes it unlawful “for any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity,” inter alia, to cheat, defraud, willfully make a false report or statement, or willfully deceive…”

Loginovskaya v. Batratchenko, 936 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff Ludmila Loginovskaya (“Loginovskaya” or “Plaintiff’) brings this action pursuant to §§ 4o and 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o, 25, against Defendants Oleg Batratchenko (“Batratchenko”), Tatiana Smirnova (“Smirnova”), John Does 1-20, and…”

Loginovskaya v. Batratchenko, 764 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “f CEA § 4o, 7 U.S.C. § 6o (2008) (protecting against “prospective clients or participants” (emphasis added)); Morrison, 130 S.”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Jack W. Savage, 611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “Count V charged violations of section 4o of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o. 8 That section forbade a commodity trading advisor “registered under this Act .”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Heffernan, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (S.D. Ga. 2003). · cites it 12× “§ 6o (1)(A) & (B) by employing a scheme to defraud a client and engaging in a practice or course of business that operated as a fraud upon a client, while acting as a Commodity Trade Advisor (“CTA”), and (3) violated 17 C.”

State v. Oxborrow, 723 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] In the plea bargaining arrangement, Oxborrow also pleaded guilty to four federal crimes: (1) fraud by commodity pool operator, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o(1), 13(b); (2) fraud in sales of securities, 15 U.”

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Arrington, 998 F. Supp. 2d 847 (D. Neb. 2014). · cites it 7× “Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Kratville fraudulently made misrepresentations, and issued false statements in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o and 17 C.F.R. § 4.41 (a). V.”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Equity Fin. Grp. LLC, 572 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Under a separate consent order, Abernathy was found to have engaged in fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o. He was enjoined from engaging in commodity futures markets, including accounting practices involving commodity futures.”

United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Driver, 877 F. Supp. 2d 968 (C.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 3× “Therefore, these Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions of material facts and Driver’s misappropriation of pool funds, as discussed above, violated not only section 4b of the Act, but also section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). The CFTC’s Motion for Summary…”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Ken Roberts Co., 276 F.3d 583 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Since 1994, the CFTC has carefully monitored the activities of KRC to determine whether the company had violated various sections of the CEA, particularly the statute’s antifraud provisions, 7 U.S.C. § 6o (1999). In at least four separate investigations, the Commission sought to…”

Gaudette v. Panos, 644 F. Supp. 826 (D. Mass. 1986). · cites it 5× “The Commodity Exchange Act Claim Count VI of the second amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated § 4o of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o (“CEA”), 7 when they recommended that the plaintiffs open a commodity account and purchase commodity futures contracts…”

Show all 102 citing cases →

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1) — 21 cases

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Arrington, 998 F. Supp. 2d 847 (D. Neb. 2014). “Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Kratville fraudulently made misrepresentations, and issued false statements in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o and 17 C.F.R. § 4.41 (a). V.”

State v. Oxborrow, 723 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1986). “NOTES [1] In the plea bargaining arrangement, Oxborrow also pleaded guilty to four federal crimes: (1) fraud by commodity pool operator, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o(1), 13(b); (2) fraud in sales of securities, 15 U.”

United States v. Steven Sawyer, Harvey M. Bloch, Allen C. Leavitt, 799 F.2d 1494 (11th Cir. 1986).

Gunderson v. ADM Inv. Servs., Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 892 (N.D. Iowa 2000).

Cftc v. James Crombie, 914 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2019).

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) — 21 cases

United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Driver, 877 F. Supp. 2d 968 (C.D. Cal. 2012). “Therefore, these Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions of material facts and Driver’s misappropriation of pool funds, as discussed above, violated not only section 4b of the Act, but also section 4o(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B). The CFTC’s Motion for Summary…”

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Wilson, 19 F. Supp. 3d 352 (D. Mass. 2014).

Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 233 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2000).

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Ramos (N.D. Tex. 2021).

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(B) — 4 cases

Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 233 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2000).

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Fin. Tree (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Fintech Inv. Grp., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Walczak, Edward (W.D. Wis. 2024).

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(a)(1)(A)(B) — 1 case

RMLB LLC v. CPM Mgmt. LLC (E.D.N.Y 2023).

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(i) — 1 case

Howell v. Freifeld, 631 F. Supp. 1222 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l) — 19 cases

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Cross v. Anthony Vartuli, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Avco Fin. Corp., J. Michael Gent, 228 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000). “Count II charged the defendants with fraud by a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) and fraudulent advertising under Section 4o (1) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6o (1). Count III charged the defendants with having failed to register AVCO as a CTA as required by Section 4m(l) of the CEA,…”

Loginovskaya v. Batratchenko, 764 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2014). “f CEA § 4o, 7 U.S.C. § 6o (2008) (protecting against “prospective clients or participants” (emphasis added)); Morrison, 130 S.”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. JBW Capital, LLC, 812 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2016). “§ 6b(a)(l), a general fraud provision, which makes it unlawful “for any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity,” inter alia, to cheat, defraud, willfully make a false report or statement, or willfully deceive…”

United States v. John L. Harris, 707 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1983).

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(A) — 8 cases

Loginovskaya v. Batratchenko, 936 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “Plaintiff Ludmila Loginovskaya (“Loginovskaya” or “Plaintiff’) brings this action pursuant to §§ 4o and 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6o, 25, against Defendants Oleg Batratchenko (“Batratchenko”), Tatiana Smirnova (“Smirnova”), John Does 1-20, and…”

Ghouth v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 642 F. Supp. 1325 (N.D. Ill. 1986).

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Equity Fin. Grp. LLC, 572 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2009). “Under a separate consent order, Abernathy was found to have engaged in fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o. He was enjoined from engaging in commodity futures markets, including accounting practices involving commodity futures.”

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(B) — 4 cases

Starshinova v. Batratchenko, 931 F. Supp. 2d 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

S & A Farms, Inc. v. Farms.com, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 898 (S.D. Iowa 2011).

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Equity Fin. Grp. LLC, 537 F. Supp. 2d 677 (D.N.J. 2008).

— 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(b) — 1 case

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Equity Fin. Grp. LLC, 537 F. Supp. 2d 677 (D.N.J. 2008).

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.