Market Manipulation. Search

CFTC v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (spoofing, 2020)

Settled

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission settled an action with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., alleging conduct this library classifies as spoofing. The release records a civil penalty of $9 million.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency CFTC
Release number 8185-20
Date filed 2020-06-18
Date resolved 2020-06-18
Court U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Status settled
Asset class futures
Venue CME
Criminal parallel No
Defendants Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (entity)
Techniques Spoofing

What was ordered

Civil penalty
$9m
Disgorgement
Prejudgment interest
Total relief
$9m
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 June 18, 2020 as release 8185-20. The respondents named are Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (0 individuals, 1 entity). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

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 conduct is recorded against futures, with CME identified in the release.

The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $9 million. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

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.

Timeline

  1. 2020-06-18 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.

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.

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

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEC v. Frank M. Cerisano Jr. (spoofing, 2026) SEC 2026-08-10 Spoofing judgment
SEC v. Mingran Wang (spoofing, 2026) SEC 2026-06-25 Spoofing settled
CFTC v. New York Trader (spoofing, 2026) CFTC 2026-05-06 Spoofing $200k judgment
CFTC v. Gregg Smith (spoofing, 2026) CFTC 2026-01-16 Spoofing , Wash Trading $200k judgment
SEC v. Artur Khachatryan (spoofing, 2025) SEC 2025-12-16 Spoofing judgment
SEC v. M Holdings Securities, Inc. (spoofing, 2025) SEC 2025-11-25 Spoofing settled

Record added September 8, 2026. submit a correction.