CFTC v. Andre Flotron (spoofing, 2018)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (cftc-andre-flotron-spoofing-2018) by email

In January 2018 the CFTC charged former UBS precious metals trader Andre Flotron in Connecticut with spoofing. On February 5, 2019 the court entered a final judgment and consent order requiring a $100,000 penalty and a one-year trading and registration ban.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$100k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$100k

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

The CFTC announced this matter on January 29, 2018 as release 7685-18, in the District of Connecticut, alleging spoofing in precious metals futures while he was employed at UBS.

Outcome: CFTC release 7867-19 (February 7, 2019) says Judge Vanessa Bryant issued a final judgment and consent order on February 5, 2019 requiring a $100,000 civil penalty and imposing a one-year trading and registration ban. The release says the order finds that from at least August 2008 to at least November 2013 he placed large orders with intent to cancel them before execution to mislead other traders. It is a consent order, so these are findings entered by agreement. The release does not describe the parallel criminal matter noted in the original record.

This library tags the matter as spoofing, based on the conduct the regulator describes. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Spoofing — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2018-01-29 CFTC release published
2. 2019-02-05 Final judgment and consent order entered against Flotron

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• CFTC release
• CFTC press release 7867-19 (consent order)

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.