CFTC presses ahead with spoofing case against former Deutsche Bank traders

The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has opposed the arguments raised by former Deutsche Bank traders James Vorley and Cedric Chanu, who are accused of spoofing. The regulator has submitted its opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss at the Illinois Northern District Court on December 6, 2021.

The CFTC argues that the defendants’ motions should be denied in full.

Let’s recall that the CFTC alleges in its Complaint that Vorley and Chanu engaged in a five- year manipulative and deceptive scheme to trick other traders in the precious metals futures market by spoofing. To effect the scheme, Vorley and Chanu allegedly placed large bids and offers with the intent to cancel those orders before execution, in order to induce other market participants to transact on smaller orders that Vorley and Chanu had placed on the opposite side of the market.

In other words, Vorley and Chanu are alleged to have tricked the market into believing that certain of their orders were genuine to benefit themselves. The Complaint alleges that, by virtue of this conduct, the traders engaged in acts and practices that violated the anti-spoofing provision in Section 4c(a)(5)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(5)(C) (2012), (Count I), and the prohibition on manipulative and deceptive devices in Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Commission Regulation (“Regulation”) 180.1(a)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1), (3) (Count II).

As FX News Group has reported, Vorley and Chanu moved to dismiss portions of both Counts, arguing that the Complaint was filed after the applicable five-year limitations period as to all but approximately six months of alleged misconduct. The CFTC notes that the defendants do not dispute that certain alleged conduct falls within the limitations period and that the case will proceed as to that conduct.

The regulator says that the defendants’ arguments fail because both spoofing and manipulation are properly pleaded as the types of continuing schemes that prevent the running of the statute of limitations provided at least one instance occurred within the limitations period, so the entire Complaint is timely.

The CFTC explains that its Complaint identifies a specific trading pattern, namely, that Vorley and Chanu entered visible Spoof Orders that were intended to be cancelled, on the opposite side of Genuine Orders, which were typically divided into a visible portion of a certain pre-set quantity that was visible to other market participants, and another portion of the order that was not visible to market participants until the visible portion was filled.

The allegations put Vorley and Chanu on notice of what conduct the CFTC alleges violated the Act and Regulations, and the defendants are adequately equipped to frame their defense. Further, the Complaint sets forth eight specific examples of trading by Vorley and Chanu that fall within this pattern and indicate that Defendants, when placing the Spoof Orders, intended to cancel them. Each example sets forth the date, time stamps, product, order size and placement, fills, and cancellation activity.

The Complaint also details numerous electronic communications involving Vorley, Chanu, and other traders, that include explicit references to “fake bids,” “spam bids,” “spoofing it up,” and “trick[ing]” an algorithm used by traders at other institutions. Those communications, the CFTC says, directly evidence Defendants’ manipulative and deceptive intent underlying the Scheme.

Defendants argue that the Complaint fails sufficiently to allege intent because they were “ready, willing, and able to honor” the Spoof Orders that they placed.

The CFTC says that whether certain Spoof Orders may have been executed before Defendants could cancel them—another potential fact not found in the Complaint—is not dispositive of their intent. That thousands of the defendants’ spoof orders were executed did not alter the fact that the defendant wanted to avoid having those orders executed, the regulator argues.

For the same reason, the purported distinction Defendants draw between manual and high-frequency trading, also bears no legal significance, the CFTC says adding that intent, not speed, defines spoofing.

Defendants also argue that the Complaint fails to adequately describe the market impact of their trading. In an enforcement action, however, the CFTC need not plead or prove reliance or damages.

The lawsuit reached this stage after the former traders and the regulator failed to reach a settlement.

Posted on

13 Replies to “CFTC presses ahead with spoofing case against former Deutsche Bank traders”

  9. Hier haben wir den Video-Recap für dich! Welche Events stehen im Juni
    bei den MERKUR SPIELBANKEN an? Die neue Show der MERKUR SPIELBANKEN NRW „Hab’ ich nicht gesagt!?

    Als Ergebnis dieser Klagen urteilte der Bundesgerichtshof,
    dass die Spielbanken regresspflichtig sind,
    wenn sie die Zugänge zum Spielbereich nicht kontrollieren. Weiterhin sollen Privatdetektive in der Schweiz Nachforschungen bei Banken betrieben haben, um Schwarzkonten der Beschuldigten zu entdecken. Neben Mitarbeitern der Spielbank sollen auch Finanzbeamte involviert gewesen sein. 1998 wurden Manipulationen beim Zählen des Geldes in der Spielbank Bad Oeynhausen aufgedeckt.
    Im Mai 2018 plante die Landesregierung NRW die Spielbanken zu privatisieren und ist auf der Suche nach einem
    potenziellen Käufer. Damit konnte sie ihren Marktanteil
    von zwanzig Prozent in Deutschland halten.2010 wurden von 1,16 Millionen Besuchern 109,
    225 Millionen Euro umgesetzt.
    Das Unternehmen betreibt die Gastronomie in den Spielbanken mit Restaurants, Bars und Catering.
    Seit der Übernahme durch die Gauselmann-Gruppe firmiert
    sie unter Merkur-Entertainment GmbH. 2002 wurde die Tochterfirma
    WestSpiel-Entertainment GmbH (WSE) ins Leben gerufen. Neuer Betreiber
    wurde die SIM Spielbanken Investitions-Beteiligungs und Management GmbH
    & Co KG, eine Tochter der Deutschen Sporthilfe und Novomatic AG.
    Seit der Aufspaltung der WestLB im Jahr 2002 in eine Geschäftsbank und in die NRW.Bank
    als Förderbank gehörte es zur NRW-Bank.

    References:
    https://online-spielhallen.de/1red-casino-erfahrungen-ein-umfassender-bericht-von-einem-erfahrenen-spieler/

  10. Once registered, logging in is simple, allowing immediate access to
    the casino’s features. Players can create an account within minutes by providing basic details such as name, email, and payment preferences.

    Zoome Casino operates under a reputable Curacao license, ensuring compliance with
    industry standards for fair play and security. For mobile users,
    Zoome Casino offers a fully responsive website that adapts effortlessly
    to different screen sizes.
    The game selection is massive, payouts are handled quickly, and promotions
    are designed to keep players coming back. If something goes wrong and Zoome Casino support can’t resolve it, players
    can escalate the issue by requesting a review with a supervisor.
    Players using the Zoome casino app-like browser experience can launch any of these games instantly.
    There are classic 3-reel setups, multi-payline video slots, megaways, and high volatility machines for players who like bigger
    swings.
    Most are compatible with the Zoome casino real money bonus system, meaning you can use promo funds
    here too (wagering contribution varies). These are short-session games designed for fast fun. Each Zoome casino game offers clear bet ranges and paytable info, making
    it beginner-friendly without dumbing things down. Zoome Casino pokies are
    also tournament-eligible – a great way to win more by just playing your favourites.
    Most slots come with the option to buy a bonus, and RTPs are generally in the 96–97% range.

    References:
    https://blackcoin.co/clams-casino-in-depth-review/

  11. Still, there are a few things to keep in mind when playing at online casinos.

    To determine whether an online casino offers bonuses and promotions
    worth your while, we look at the terms and conditions.
    Hence, we appreciate it when online casinos accept methods that are convenient
    for online gambling, such as PayID or Neosurf. Speaking of apps, few Australian online casinos offer them for Android
    or iOS smartphones or tablets. Hosted by real-life dealers, these games provide real casino
    action and an opportunity to interact with other players via the live chat
    feature. Besides playing at online casinos, Australians also frequent their
    land-based counterparts to enjoy their favourite form of entertainment.

    If you prefer to gamble on the go, Joe Fortune stands
    tall as Australia’s best mobile-first online casino.
    Aussie players enjoy the generous welcome bonus of
    up to $6,000 and 200 free spins. That depends on what you’re chasing—big bonuses,
    fast payouts, or massive pokies libraries.

    Crypto casinos like Oshi Casino and Win Maker Casino offer
    anonymity, low fees, and instant withdrawals. Sites like King Johnnie and Oshi Casino offer self-exclusion tools and deposit limits to keep your
    play in check. A trustworthy casino displays its license prominently check the footer of sites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *