CFTC v. Hales, Richardson, Bentley Equities (ponzi schemes, 2013)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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-bentley-equities-ponzi-schemes-2013) by email

In June 2013 the CFTC announced Utah federal court orders against Christopher D. Hales, Eric A. Richardson and Bentley Equities, LLC over a commodity futures fraud that included Ponzi-style payments to customers. Civil penalties total $2.14 million and disgorgement $482,080.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$2.1m

Disgorgement

$482k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$2.6m

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

Judge Benson entered a default judgment against Hales and Bentley on May 14, 2013, with $382,080 disgorgement, a $1,146,240 penalty on Hales and an $840,000 penalty on Bentley, and a consent order against Richardson on May 31 with $100,000 disgorgement and a $150,000 penalty. All three are permanently banned from commodity activity. The 2012 complaint alleged more than $1.1 million raised from about 39 customers, about $658,000 misappropriated, and payments to existing customers in the manner of a Ponzi scheme.

Both men were sentenced in related criminal cases. The record had entered only Richardson's $150,000 penalty and $2.7 million as disgorgement; that figure is the release's headline for disgorgement and penalties combined.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document 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. 2013-06-04 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 10, 2026. submit a correction.