CFTC v. Registered COMEX Floor Broker Dominick Anthony Cognata (matched orders, 2013)
Alleged — pending
These are allegations. CFTC has filed an action; nothing in it has been proven, and the respondents have not been found liable. Everything described on this page is what the regulator alleges, not what a court has found. See our editorial policy.
Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.
In 2013, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought an action against Registered COMEX Floor Broker Dominick Anthony Cognata, alleging conduct this library classifies as matched orders. No monetary relief has been recorded at this stage; the matter is an allegation and remains unproven.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 6724-13 |
| Date filed | 2013-10-01 |
| Status | filed |
| Asset class | commodities, futures |
| Venue | COMEX |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Registered COMEX Floor Broker Dominick Anthony Cognata |
| Techniques | Matched orders |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on October 1, 2013 as release 6724-13. The respondents named are Registered COMEX Floor Broker Dominick Anthony Cognata (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as matched orders, 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.
The conduct is recorded against commodities and futures, with COMEX identified in the release.
This matter is at the allegation stage. Nothing in the regulator's filing has been proven, and the respondents are entitled to the presumption that it has not been. This page will be updated if the matter is resolved, dismissed or withdrawn.
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.
- Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2013-10-01 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.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. RSE Markets, Inc. (matched orders, 2023) | SEC | 2023-07-12 | Matched Orders | — | settled |
| SEC v. Legal & General Investment Management America, Inc. (matched orders, 2022) | SEC | 2022-11-21 | Matched Orders | — | settled |
| SEC v. William Scott Lawler, Esq. (matched orders, 2021) | SEC | 2021-08-18 | Matched Orders , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Ahmad Haris Tajyar and Eric Leo Marsoubian (marking the close, 2021) | SEC | 2021-08-13 | Marking The Close , Matched Orders +1 | $220k | settled |
| SEC v. Ron Phillips (matched orders, 2021) | SEC | 2021-06-30 | Matched Orders | $30k | judgment |
| CFTC v. Connecticut Firm (matched orders, 2021) | CFTC | 2021-05-18 | Matched Orders , Wash Trading | $500k | judgment |