U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— COMMODITY EXCHANGES

7 U.S.C. § 9a

Assessment of money penalties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In determining the amount of the money penalty assessed under section 9 of this title, the Commission shall consider the appropriateness of such penalty to the gravity of the violation.(2) Unless the person against whom a money penalty is assessed under section 9 of this title shows to the satisfaction of the Commission within fifteen days from the expiration of the period allowed for payment of such penalty that either an appeal as authorized by section 9 of this title has been taken or payment of the full amount of the penalty then due has been made, at the end of such fifteen-day period and until such person shows to the satisfaction of the Commission that payment of such amount with interest thereon to date of payment has been made—(A) such person shall be prohibited automatically from the privileges of all registered entities; and(B) if such person is registered with the Commission, such registration shall be suspended automatically.(3) If a person against whom a money penalty is assessed under section 9 of this title takes an appeal and if the Commission prevails or the appeal is dismissed, unless such person shows to the satisfaction of the Commission that payment of the full amount of the penalty then due has been made by the end of thirty days from the date of entry of judgment on the appeal—(A) such person shall be prohibited automatically from the privileges of all registered entities; and(B) if such person is registered with the Commission, such registration shall be suspended automatically.If the person against whom the money penalty is assessed fails to pay such penalty after the lapse of the period allowed for appeal or after the affirmance of such penalty, the Commission may refer the matter to the Attorney General who shall recover such penalty by action in the appropriate United States district court.(4) Any designated clearing organization that knowingly or recklessly evades or participates in or facilitates an evasion of the requirements of section 2(h) of this title shall be liable for a civil money penalty in twice the amount otherwise available for a violation of section 2(h) of this title.(5) Any swap dealer or major swap participant that knowingly or recklessly evades or participates in or facilitates an evasion of the requirements of section 2(h) of this title shall be liable for a civil money penalty in twice the amount otherwise available for a violation of section 2(h) of this title.(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, § 6(e), formerly § 6(d), as added Pub. L. 93–463, title II, § 212(a)(3), Oct. 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 1403; renumbered § 6(e) and amended Pub. L. 102–546, title II, § 209(a)(1), (5), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3606; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title I, § 123(a)(12)(E)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–409; Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, § 741(b)(11), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1732.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section is comprised of subsec. (e) of section 6 of act Sept. 21, 1922. Subsecs. (a) and (b) of section 6 are classified to section 8 of this title. Subsec. (c) of section 6 is classified to section 9 of this title. Subsecs. (d), (f), and (g) of section 6 are classified to sections 13b, 9b, and 9c of this title, respectively.

Amendments

2010—Pars. (4), (5). Pub. L. 111–203 added pars. (4) and (5).

2000—Pars. (2)(A), (3)(A). Pub. L. 106–554 substituted “the privileges of all registered entities” for “trading on all contract markets”.

1992—Pub. L. 102–546 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: “In determining the amount of the money penalty assessed under sections 9 and 15 of this title, the Commission shall consider, in the case of a person whose primary business involves the use of the commodity futures market—the appropriateness of such penalty to the size of the business of the person charged, the extent of such person’s ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the violation; and in the case of a person whose primary business does not involve the use of the commodity futures market—the appropriateness of such penalty to the net worth of the person charged, and the gravity of the violation. If the offending person upon whom such penalty is imposed, after the lapse of the period allowed for appeal or after the affirmance of such penalty, shall fail to pay such penalty the Commission shall refer the matter to the Attorney General who shall recover such penalty by action in the appropriate United States district court.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle A (§§ 711–754) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle A, see section 754 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 1a 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 19 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Emil Lawrence v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 759 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Emil Lawrence v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 759 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 9a provides that collection of overdue money penalties imposed by the CFTC shall be referred to the Attorney General for recovery in a federal district court action.”
Sacks v. Off. of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2006). “at 771 (citing 7 U.S.C. § 9a). We rejected Lawrence’s claim, holding that referral to the Justice Department was not intended to be the Commission’s “exclusive remedy for violation of its orders to pay fines.”
JCC, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 63 F.3d 1557 (11th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 9a. 42 As the Commission has stated, “[a] fair consideration of the factors in Section 6(d) should ordinarily result in a civil penalty that does not exceed a respondent’s net worth yet deters future violations by making it beneficial financially to comply with the…”
Steven C. Brenner v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 338 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 7 U.S.C. § 9a (2003). Because the wrongdoing at issue in this case occurred after the effective date of the amendment, no consideration of collectibility was necessary.”
Hunt v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n (In Re Hunt), 93 B.R. 484 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 9a. The CFTC’s authority to assess civil monetary penalties must be distinguished from the collection of the penalties.”
Brian Monieson v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 996 F.2d 852 (7th Cir. 1993). “7 U.S.C. § 9a. In arriving at a specific sanction or combination of sanctions, the Commission will consider “the nature of the violations, the existence of any injuries inflicted on others by reason of these violations, and a review of the sanctions imposed in the past for…”
Premex, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 785 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “*1409 The Act provides that, in determining the amount of a monetary penalty, “the Commission shall consider, ... in the case of a person whose primary business does not involve the use of the commodity futures market — the appropriateness of such penalty to the net worth of the…”
Howard Miller v. Commodities Futures Trading Comm'n, 197 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Commission held that Miller had waived the right provided by the statute, 7 U.S.C. § 9a, to have his net worth considered.”
DeWit v. Firstar Corp., 904 F. Supp. 1476 (N.D. Iowa 1995). “Assuming that the Booth court might have been referring to § 6 of the Act itself, rather than to the codified section, the court has examined 7 U.S.C. § 9a, which was the codification of § 6(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act as of 1970.”
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Fan Wang, 261 F. Supp. 3d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 13a~l(d)(l), which provides that the “Commission may seek and the court shall have jurisdiction to impose ... a civil penalty.”
Jerry W. Slusser v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 210 F.3d 783 (1st Cir. 2000). “Until the 1992 amendment deleted it, 7 U.S.C. § 9a contained this language: In determining the amount of the money penalty .”
United States v. Furlett, 781 F. Supp. 536 (N.D. Ill. 1991). · cites it 2× “Compare 7 U.S.C. § 9a. Rather, the criteria included “the size of the [mine] operator, previous violation history, seriousness of the violations, negligence of the operator, good faith correction of the violative conditions, and the ability of the operator to continue in the…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
7 U.S.C. § 9a(1): 3 cases
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Fan Wang, 261 F. Supp. 3d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “§ 13a~l(d)(l), which provides that the “Commission may seek and the court shall have jurisdiction to impose ... a civil penalty.”
United States v. Michael John Alcocer Roa, No. 17-10578 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018).
Brenner, Steven C. v. CFTR, No. 02-3722 (7th Cir. July 30, 2003).
7 U.S.C. § 9a(l): 4 cases
JCC, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 63 F.3d 1557 (11th Cir. 1995). “” 7 U.S.C. § 9a. 42 As the Commission has stated, “[a] fair consideration of the factors in Section 6(d) should ordinarily result in a civil penalty that does not exceed a respondent’s net worth yet deters future violations by making it beneficial financially to comply with the…”
Steven C. Brenner v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 338 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2003). “See 7 U.S.C. § 9a (2003). Because the wrongdoing at issue in this case occurred after the effective date of the amendment, no consideration of collectibility was necessary.”
Commodities Futures Trading Comm'n v. Heffernan, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (S.D. Ga. 2003).
Grossfeld v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 137 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1998).
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.