CFTC v. Kunal Bansal, Vinit Agarwal, Aralia Securities, Ltd. and Vintage Bullion DMCC (wash trading, 2021)
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.
In December 2021, the CFTC settled charges against Dubai residents Kunal Bansal and Vinit Agarwal and their firms Aralia Securities, Ltd. and Vintage Bullion DMCC, ordering a joint US$100,000 penalty for wash sales and noncompetitive gold futures trades on COMEX.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 8476-21 |
| Date filed | 2021-12-27 |
| Date resolved | 2021-12-27 |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | commodities, futures |
| Venue | CME, COMEX |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Kunal Bansal ; Vinit Agarwal ; Aralia Securities, Ltd. ; Vintage Bullion DMCC |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $100k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $100k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on December 27, 2021 as release 8476-21. The respondents named are Kunal Bansal, Vinit Agarwal, Aralia Securities, Ltd. and Vintage Bullion DMCC (2 individuals, 2 entities).
According to the order, Bansal told Agarwal when to place Vintage's sell orders for 250 COMEX gold futures contracts around April 14, 2020, and placed matching buy orders for Aralia at the same prices. On one occasion the two prices did not line up, so Agarwal cut his offer to make sure the trades executed.
This library tags the matter as wash trading, 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 joint and several $100,000 civil monetary penalty and cease-and-desist orders.
The respondents 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.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2021-12-27 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.