CFTC v. unnamed respondents (wash trading, 2014)
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 2014, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought an action against the named respondents, alleging conduct this library classifies as wash trading. No monetary relief has been recorded at this stage; the matter is an allegation and remains unproven.
The record
| Agency | CFTC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 7052-14 |
| Date filed | 2014-11-07 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida |
| Status | filed |
| Asset class | futures |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | trading ban |
| Defendants | |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
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 November 7, 2014 as release 7052-14. The respondents named are the named respondents. The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida.
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 conduct is recorded against futures.
Non-monetary relief recorded: trading ban.
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 This page will be updated if the matter is resolved, dismissed or withdrawn.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.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2014-11-07 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. Gotbit Consulting LLC a/k/a Gotbit Hedge Fund and Fedor Kedrov (wash trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-03 | Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Canaccord Genuity LLC (marking the close, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-06 | Marking The Close , Marking The Open +2 | — | settled |
| SEC v. Justin Sun, Tron Foundation Limited, BitTorrent Foundation Ltd., Rainberry, Inc., and DeAndre Cortez Way (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-05 | Paid Stock Promotion , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| CFTC v. unnamed respondents (insider trading, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-02-25 | Insider Trading , Wash Trading | — | settled |
| CFTC v. Gregg Smith (spoofing, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-01-16 | Spoofing , Wash Trading | $200k | judgment |
| CFTC v. Shinhan Securities Co. Ltd. (wash trading, 2025) | CFTC | 2025-09-17 | Wash Trading | $213k | judgment |