CFTC v. Gelber Group (wash trading, 2013)
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 February 2013, the CFTC settled charges against Gelber Group, LLC, which paid US$750,000 for false pre-open orders and wash sales, and against its former trading manager Martin A. Lorenzen, who paid US$200,000 for wash sales.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 6512-13 |
| Date filed | 2013-02-08 |
| Date resolved | 2013-02-08 |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities, futures |
| Venue | CME, ICE, Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Gelber Group, LLC ; Martin A. Lorenzen |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $950k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $950k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on February 8, 2013 as release 6512-13. The respondents named are Gelber Group, LLC and Martin A. Lorenzen (1 individual, 1 entity).
The orders find that a Gelber proprietary trader reported orders in the pre-opening session of the NASDAQ 100 E-mini contract that the firm did not intend to execute, between August 2009 and February 2010, and that Gelber and Lorenzen also entered wash sales.
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.
Gelber: a $750,000 civil monetary penalty. Lorenzen: a $200,000 penalty. Both must cease and desist.
The respondents consented to the orders.
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
- 2013-02-08 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.