CFTC v. Kevin McLaren (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 April 2013, the CFTC settled charges against Kevin McLaren and Edward Gorman, ordering US$200,000 penalties each and 140-day trading bans for prearranged calendar spread trades in corn futures that the order treats as wash sales.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 6576-13 |
| Date filed | 2013-04-29 |
| Date resolved | 2013-04-29 |
| Status | judgment |
| Venue | CME |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | trading ban |
| Defendants | Kevin McLaren ; Edward Gorman |
| Cited as charged or alleged | CEA s.4c(a) and Regulation 1.38 |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $400k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $400k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on April 29, 2013 as release 6576-13. The respondents named are Kevin McLaren and Edward Gorman (2 individuals, 0 entities).
The order finds that on several occasions in March 2010 the two entered prearranged calendar spread trades in spot-month corn futures with the same quantity, price and contract month, executed opposite each other, to remove market risk. The CFTC calls these wash sales; the order does not say the accounts shared an owner.
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 $200,000 civil monetary penalty on each (recorded here as $400,000), and 140-day trading bans.
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
- 2013-04-29 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.