CFTC v. unnamed respondents (ponzi schemes, 2019)

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-7948-19-ponzi-schemes-2019) by email

In June 2019 the CFTC announced a consent order against the Kane Capital Investment Group and its president Amrit Chahal for commodity pool fraud, requiring $1,232,510.41 in restitution, deemed satisfied by his criminal forfeiture, and permanent trading and registration bans. Chahal had been sentenced to 30 months in prison.

The record

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 order finds that from 2015 to 2017 the defendants solicited and misappropriated customer money in connection with futures trading, hid losses behind false claims of 28-34% annual profits and doctored statements, and used new deposits to make Ponzi-scheme-like payments to some participants and to pay Chahal's personal bills.

The money is restitution, not a penalty: the order imposes no civil monetary penalty, and treats the $1,232,510.41 as satisfied by the criminal forfeiture judgment entered against Chahal. The record had entered $1.2 million as a penalty. Chahal pleaded guilty to wire and commodities fraud in November 2018 and was sentenced in March 2019 to 30 months. The SEC brought a parallel case.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the order or release describes payments to earlier participants made from later participants' money. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

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

1. 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.

• CFTC release
• 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 20, 2026. submit a correction.