CFTC v. Igor B. Oystacher and 3 Red Trading LLC (spoofing, 2015)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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-chicago-trader-igor-b-oystacher-his-proprietary-trading-company-spoofing-20) by email

The CFTC's October 2015 civil spoofing case against Igor Oystacher and 3Red Trading LLC ended in a consent order of permanent injunction in the Northern District of Illinois, announced on 20 December 2016. The defendants must pay a $2.5 million civil penalty, jointly and severally, accept a three-year independent monitor and use compliance tools for 18 months. The CFTC says the order found that they spoofed five futures contracts on four exchanges.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$2.5m

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$2.5m

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 October 19, 2015 as release 7264-15. The respondents named are Igor B. Oystacher and 3 Red Trading LLC (1 individual, 1 entity).

This library tags the matter as spoofing, 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 CFTC filed a civil complaint alleging Oystacher and his firm spoofed E-mini S&P 500, copper, crude oil, natural gas and VIX futures on at least 51 trading days between December 2011 and January 2014.

The conduct is recorded against commodities and futures.

Judge Amy St. Eve entered the consent order, which the CFTC announced on 20 December 2016. It permanently bars Oystacher and 3Red from spoofing and from using manipulative or deceptive devices in futures trading, including entering orders with the intent to cancel them, imposes a $2.5 million civil monetary penalty, jointly and severally, appoints an independent monitor for three years, and requires compliance tools for all of Oystacher's U.S. futures trading for 18 months. The CFTC describes the order as finding intentional and repeated spoofing of E-mini S&P 500, crude oil, natural gas and other contracts. Because this is a consent order, the findings come from the order the defendants agreed to; the CFTC's release as I read it shows no criminal case.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary documents linked above. This page summarises the structured record and does not reproduce them.

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.

• Spoofing — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2015-10-19 CFTC release published
2. 2016-12-20 Consent order of permanent injunction entered; CFTC announces $2.5 million penalty (N.D. Ill.)

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 press release 7504-16 (consent order and $2.5 million penalty)

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 10, 2026. submit a correction.