CFTC v. Cilli, Progressive Investment Funds (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.
In March 2013 the CFTC announced it had revoked the registrations of Victor E. Cilli and Progressive Investment Funds LLC after a default initial decision, relying on a New Jersey injunction and Cilli's guilty plea to running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded four commodity pool investors of $506,000.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 6543-13 |
| Date filed | 2013-03-27 |
| Date resolved | 2013-03-27 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: sentenced (Victor Cilli), U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey |
| Sentence | 3 years |
| Defendants | Victor E. Cilli ; Progressive Investment Funds LLC |
| Techniques | Ponzi schemes |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The release reports a registration revocation. A CFTC Judgment Officer issued an initial decision on default on February 7, 2013, finding the two statutorily disqualified because of a May 2012 injunction from the District of New Jersey and Cilli's October 2011 criminal conviction. Cilli admitted in his plea to running a Ponzi scheme that cost four commodity pool investors $506,000, and he received a 36-month prison term.
The record previously listed the status as unknown; the revocation is final as announced. No money relief is stated in the release.
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
- 2013-03-27 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 (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Ponzi Schemes | — | settled |
| SEC v. Leor Moshe, Jacob Goldman, Isaac Odes (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-13 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |
| CFTC v. Goliath Ventures, Inc. and Christopher Delgado (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 | — | filed |
| SEC v. Aras Investment Business Group S.A.P.I. de C.V. and others (ponzi schemes, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-24 | Ponzi Schemes | $449k | judgment |
| CFTC v. Trevor L. Vernon and Argent Capital Management LLC (ponzi schemes, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-07-07 | Ponzi Schemes | — | filed |