CFTC v. Yumin Li and Kering Capital Ltd (matched orders, 2016)

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-7498-16-matched-orders-2016) by email

In December 2016, a federal court in Illinois found that Yumin Li took more than US$300,000 from her employer by trading its account against an account of Kering Capital Ltd, ordering restitution and a penalty of over US$900,000, three times the unlawful gains.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$901k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$901k

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 December 14, 2016 as release 7498-16. The respondents named are Yumin Li and Kering Capital Ltd (1 individual, 1 entity).

The court found on undisputed facts that on six occasions between March and May 2015 Li placed her employer's account on the opposite side of trades in illiquid Eurodollar futures against an account she controlled at Kering, a British Virgin Islands company formed by her mother, outside normal hours. The trades were prearranged and moved $300,462.50 from the employer to Kering. Because the two accounts had different owners, 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.

Restitution of over $300,000 and a civil monetary penalty of over $900,000 (recorded as three times the gain of $300,462.50), a five-year trading ban for Li, and a permanent injunction.

The court entered judgment after summary adjudication; Li had left the United States.

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. 2016-12-14 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

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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 20, 2026. submit a correction.