CFTC v. Rosenthal Collins Capital Markets LLC (wash trading, 2017)
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 June 2017, the CFTC settled charges against Rosenthal Collins Capital Markets LLC (now DV Trading LLC), ordering a US$5 million penalty for wash sales aimed at earning exchange fee rebates, and against former trader Brandon Elsasser, ordering US$200,000 for similar wash sales.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 7582-17 |
| Date filed | 2017-06-29 |
| Date resolved | 2017-06-29 |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | futures |
| Venue | CME |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Rosenthal Collins Capital Markets LLC ; Brandon Elsasser |
| Cited as charged or alleged | CEA s.4c(a) and Regulation 1.38 |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $5.2m
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $5.2m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on June 29, 2017 as release 7582-17. The respondents named are Rosenthal Collins Capital Markets LLC and Brandon Elsasser (1 individual, 1 entity).
The order finds that from early 2013 to July 2015 proprietary traders at the firm entered wash sales to generate exchange rebates tied to increased trading volume, using three different strategies. A separate order finds Elsasser entered illegal 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.
The firm: a $5 million civil monetary penalty. Elsasser: $200,000.
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
- 2017-06-29 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.