CFTC v. unnamed respondents (ponzi schemes, 2019)
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 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission obtained a judgment against the named respondents, alleging conduct this library classifies as ponzi schemes. The release records a civil penalty of $1.2 million. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 7948-19 |
| Date filed | 2019-06-27 |
| Date resolved | 2019-06-27 |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | commodities, equities, futures |
| Venue | NYMEX, Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | Yes |
| Defendants | |
| Techniques | Ponzi schemes |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $1.2m
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $1.2m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on June 27, 2019 as release 7948-19. The respondents named are the named respondents.
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.
The conduct is recorded against commodities and equities and futures, with NYMEX, Nasdaq identified in the release.
The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $1.2 million. 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.
The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.
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 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.
- Ponzi schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2019-06-27 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. 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 |