Digital Assets Report

Newsletter

Like this article?

Sign up to our free newsletter

US court orders Swiss firm to pay over USD9m in commodity fraud action

Related Topics

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has announced that Jörg Heierle, of Miami Beach, Florida, and INH-Interholding of Switzerland and Miami Beach, have been found jointly a

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has announced that Jörg Heierle, of Miami Beach, Florida, and INH-Interholding of Switzerland and Miami Beach, have been found jointly and severally liable for the payment of USD3,075,841 in restitution to defrauded investors and each ordered to pay a USD3m civil penalty.

The default judgment against the defendants was entered by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, following their failure to appear or answer the CFTC’s complaint charging them with fraud in connection with the operation of a commodity pool.

The court found that the defendants’ fraudulent solicitations netted at least USD4,367,206 from at least 25 pool participants.

According to the court’s order, Heierle and INH sustained USD985,357 in trading losses and returned USD306,008 to pool participants as purported profits.

The court’s order also permanently prohibits both defendants from engaging in any activity related to commodity trading.

In a separate order, the court entered default judgment against relief defendant Futures Trading Academy of Bay Harbour, Florida, ordering it to disgorge more than USD420,000 in INH customer funds.

Both orders arise out of a CFTC complaint filed on 12 September 2007 in the same federal court, charging Heierle and INH with fraudulently soliciting at least USD4.4m for investment in a commodity futures and options pool fraud scheme.

The complaint also charged Heierle and INH with concealing trading losses by issuing, or causing to be issued, false statements to pool participants regarding the profitability of their INH investments.

The CFTC named Futures Trading Academy as a relief defendant due to its receipt of pool participants’ funds for which it provided no legitimate services and to which it had no legitimate interest or entitlement.

Like this article? Sign up to our free newsletter

Most Popular

Further Reading

Featured