CFTC v. Gerald J. Considine, Novo Trading LLC and Considine Trading Corp. (customer fund fraud, 2014)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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-illinois-resident-gerald-j-considine-2014) by email

In September 2014 the CFTC sued Gerald Considine and his companies Novo Trading and Considine Trading Corp. in the Northern District of Illinois over alleged misappropriation of customer funds. A May 2015 consent order enjoined them, and on September 30, 2016 the court assessed a $1.65 million civil penalty and closed the civil case.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$1.7m

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$1.7m

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 September 29, 2014 as release 7018-14. The respondents named are Gerald J. Considine, Novo Trading LLC and Considine Trading Corp. (1 individual, 2 entities).

The complaint alleges that from 2010 to 2013 the defendants told customers their money would go into individual managed futures or forex accounts, but instead pooled it and spent it on personal items such as club fees, cars, dinners and pet care. No wash trading is alleged.

This library applies no technique tag to the matter. The conduct is solicitation fraud and misappropriation of customer funds.

By a consent order dated May 10, 2015, the defendants agreed that they had violated the Commodity Exchange Act by defrauding investors in what the order describes as a Ponzi scheme, and Considine had pleaded guilty to wire fraud in the parallel criminal case. The consent order imposed a permanent injunction and left restitution, disgorgement and penalty for later. After his criminal sentencing the CFTC asked for a $4.95 million penalty; on September 30, 2016 the court instead assessed $1,650,000 against the defendants, rejecting the argument that no penalty should be imposed, and terminated the civil case. The order does not state any restitution figure or the criminal sentence.

Timeline

1. 2014-09-29 CFTC release published
2. 2016-09-30 Court assesses $1,650,000 civil penalty and terminates the civil case

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
• Court order assessing civil penalty, 30 September 2016

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.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.