CFTC v. Connecticut Firm (matched orders, 2021)
Judgment entered
Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.
In 2021, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission obtained a judgment against Connecticut Firm, alleging conduct this library classifies as matched orders and wash trading. The release records a civil penalty of $500,000.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 8389-21 |
| Date filed | 2021-05-18 |
| Date resolved | 2021-05-18 |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | commodities |
| Venue | CME |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Connecticut Firm |
| Techniques | Matched orders , Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $500k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $500k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on May 18, 2021 as release 8389-21. The respondents named are Connecticut Firm (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as matched orders and wash trading, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.
The conduct is recorded against commodities, with CME identified in the release.
The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $500,000. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with 2 techniques 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.
- Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2021-05-18 CFTC release published
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. William Scott Lawler, Esq. (matched orders, 2021) | SEC | 2021-08-18 | Matched Orders , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Ahmad Haris Tajyar and Eric Leo Marsoubian (marking the close, 2021) | SEC | 2021-08-13 | Marking The Close , Matched Orders +1 | $220k | settled |
| CFTC v. Coinbase Inc. (exchange wash trading, 2021) | CFTC | 2021-03-19 | Exchange Wash Trading , Matched Orders +1 | $6.5m | judgment |
| CFTC v. Trader and His Firm (matched orders, 2020) | CFTC | 2020-05-07 | Matched Orders , Wash Trading | $150k | judgment |
| CFTC v. unnamed respondents (matched orders, 2016) | CFTC | 2016-12-15 | Matched Orders , Wash Trading | $1.2m | filed |
| CFTC v. MF Global Inc. (boiler rooms, 2014) | CFTC | 2014-11-07 | Boiler Rooms , Matched Orders +1 | — | settled |