CFTC v. Yueyu Bao (matched orders, 2024)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-yueyu-bao-matched-orders-2024) by email

In October 2024, a California federal court entered a default judgment against Chinese citizen Yueyu Bao, ordering a US$260,140 penalty and US$130,070 disgorgement over 33 prearranged noncompetitive futures trades that moved money from his cousin's account to his own.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$260k

Disgorgement

$130k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$390k

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 Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on October 24, 2024 as release 9000-24. The respondents named are Yueyu Bao (1 individual, 0 entities).

The orders find that in October and November 2021 Bao and his cousin coordinated and synchronised 33 trades of 410 futures contracts on the CBOT, in low-volume periods, to pass $130,070 from his cousin's account to his. The accounts had different owners, so we classify this as matched orders (a money pass), not wash trading.

This library tags the matter as matched orders, 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.

A civil monetary penalty of $260,140, disgorgement of $130,070, a permanent injunction, and a permanent trading and registration ban.

The judgment was entered by default.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2024-10-24 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.

• CFTC release
• CFTC order or complaint
• CFTC order or complaint

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.