CFTC v. Gregg Smith and Michael Nowak (spoofing, 2026)

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.

Report an error in this record (cftc-gregg-smith-spoofing-2026) by email

In January 2026, the CFTC announced consent orders from an Illinois federal court against Gregg Smith, ordering a US$200,000 penalty and a three-year trading ban for precious metals spoofing, and against Michael Nowak, with a US$150,000 penalty and six-month ban.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$350k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$350k

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 January 16, 2026 as release 9168-26. The respondents named are Gregg Smith and Michael Nowak (2 individuals, 0 entities).

The release is a roundup of enforcement updates. The Smith and Nowak orders resolve a 2019 CFTC case over spoofing in precious metals futures while employed at a major bank; both men were convicted in a related criminal case. The same release covers an unrelated insider-information case against Peter Miller and a complaint against Travis Ford, and the $135,788 disgorgement in it belongs to Miller and his firm, not to Smith.

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.

Smith: a $200,000 civil monetary penalty and a three-year trading and registration ban. Nowak: a $150,000 penalty and a six-month ban.

The orders were entered by consent. The criminal case ended in convictions for fraud, attempted price manipulation and spoofing.

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. 2026-01-16 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.

• CFTC release
• CFTC order or complaint
• CFTC order or complaint
• CFTC order or complaint
• CFTC order or complaint

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.