Market Manipulation. Search

CFTC v. 4 Florida Men (ponzi schemes, 2020)

Alleged — pending

These are allegations. CFTC has filed an action; nothing in it has been proven, and the respondents have not been found liable. Everything described on this page is what the regulator alleges, not what a court has found. See our editorial policy.

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 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought an action against 4 Florida Men, alleging conduct this library classifies as ponzi schemes. No monetary relief has been recorded at this stage; the matter is an allegation and remains unproven.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency CFTC
Release number 8246-20
Date filed 2020-09-16
Court U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Status filed
Criminal parallel No
Bars imposed trading ban
Defendants 4 Florida Men (individual)
Techniques Ponzi schemes

What was ordered

Civil penalty
Disgorgement
Prejudgment interest
Total relief
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 September 16, 2020 as release 8246-20. The respondents named are 4 Florida Men (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes, 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.

Non-monetary relief recorded: trading ban.

This matter is at the allegation stage. Nothing in the regulator's filing has been proven, and the respondents are entitled to the presumption that it has not been. This page will be updated if the matter is resolved, dismissed or withdrawn.

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.

Timeline

  1. 2020-09-16 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.

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.

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

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEC v. Mark D. Hanf and Hoai-Nam Chu Phan a/k/a Nam Phan (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-09-04 Ponzi Schemes settled
SEC v. David T. Gilchrist, Christopher Aaron Novinger, Rebecca Novinger (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-09-01 Ponzi Schemes unknown
SEC v. Mordechai Haim Ferder and others (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-09-01 Ponzi Schemes unknown
SEC v. Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman, Isaac Odes (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-08-13 Ponzi Schemes filed
CFTC v. Goliath Ventures Inc. and CEO (ponzi schemes, 2026) CFTC 2026-08-11 Ponzi Schemes filed
SEC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher A. Delgado (ponzi schemes, 2026) SEC 2026-08-11 Ponzi Schemes settled

Record added September 8, 2026. If this matter has since resolved, been withdrawn or been dismissed, we want to know: submit a correction.