CFTC v. Jie "Elaine" Yu (matched orders, 2023)

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-california-resident-matched-orders-2023) by email

In September 2023, the CFTC settled charges against Irvine resident Jie "Elaine" Yu, ordering a US$300,000 penalty and six-month bans for 33 prearranged noncompetitive CME futures trades that moved at least US$159,000 to her cousin's account.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$300k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$300k

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 22, 2023 as release 8781-23. The respondents named are Jie "Elaine" Yu (1 individual, 0 entities).

The order finds that in October and November 2021 Yu and her cousin in Shanghai coordinated in real time and timed their orders in low-volume periods so they would match, with no price competition or market risk, to pass funds to her cousin's account. The accounts had different owners, so 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.

A $300,000 civil monetary penalty, six-month trading and registration bans, and a cease-and-desist order.

Yu consented to the order.

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. 2023-09-22 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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.