UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Vincent McCrudden, Alnbri Management, LLC and Managed Accounts Asset Management, LLC Defendants
May 10, 2017
Penalty Brief for Defendants
Vincent McCrudden – Pro Se
3942 Hillstead Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32216
Michael Peter Kushner – Attorney
Defendants Alnbri Management, LLC & Managed Accounts Asset Management, LLC
Kushner Law Group
16 Court Street, Suite 2901
Brooklyn, NY 11241
After seven years of litigation, the Defendants hereby state that Defendant Vincent McCrudden is not liable as a control person, and therefore not liable for any penalties including monetary fines, trading or registration bans. Defendants Alnbri and MAAM could be deemed liable for trading exemption violations, but only one case could be found that the Court could refer to for any penalty, but the unlawful process the CFTC and other regulators pursued already has punished the corporate defendants far more punitively than a simple registration case should warrant.
Defendant’s Penalty Phase Brief
Hybrid Fund II, LP (“HF II, LP”) was actually established back in 2005 to serve as a vehicle for investors to invest in an absolute rate of return product. Managed Accounts Asset Management, LLC (“MAAM”) was actually the first General Partner (“GP”). HF II, LP and the GP were set up by a renowned hedge fund law firm, Sadis & Goldberg. Sadis partner, Mr. Ron Geffner, a former SEC attorney and high profile attorney in the hedge fund industry oversaw the production and formation of all the entities to be compliant of all federal, regulatory, and state laws. On December 14, 2005, Sadis & Goldberg filed a Notice of Exemption from Commodity Pool Registration with the National Futures Association (“NFA”). (Exhibit A) The NFA was formed in 1982 on the premise that industry participants would be subject to registration requirements by them. Because of Vincent McCrudden’s already personal history with NFA & CFTC officials, any vehicle that wanted to trade in the futures markets would have to be designed as an exemption from registration. Because of the corrupt denial of registration process in 2005 by the NFA and detailed in Document 176, McCrudden had filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which was pending at the time.
On or about February 2008, the Second Circuit denied the appeal which left no reasonable window open for McCrudden to operate a registered entity, or for McCrudden to be registered as an Associated Person (“AP”). The decision was also very punitive because it also terminated McCrudden’s NASD/FINRA Securities Licenses, 4, 7, 24, 55 & 67, which McCrudden relied on to make a living. Because of SEC rules, a registered participant denied registration by a Self Regulatory Organization (“SRO”) would automatically terminate all of his other licenses although not related at all. So, licenses studied and passed in 1998, were all lost because of unfounded allegations by the NFA & CFTC based in 1996. Furthermore, appellate court panel Judges, Reena Raggi and Robert Katzman would become additional corrupt figures in McCrudden’s future criminal cases. At the time of the oral argument, my attorney, a Washington D.C. based attorney, had been a lawyer for 25 years stated after hearing Reena Raggi bias at the oral hearing, “that has never happened to me before. Obviously Raggi was predisposed.” I would later learn Raggi was a former District Court Judge based in the Eastern District. It was my first lesson of how high up corruption was between the Courts and Government.
In 2008, powerful Government officials were well aware of whom I was and they had colluded to destroy my life and career for sport for a decade already. In 2006, I had gone to Washington D.C. to combat the efforts against me. On February 15, 2006, I attended a CFTC hearing on Self Regulatory Organizations. At the hearing, I spoke out against the NFA in a public forum (Exhibit B). During this time, I had also met with many elected officials and their staff including Senator Schumer, Congressman Steve Israel and Congressman Gary Ackerman. I had also hired a private lawyer based in Washington D.C. to investigate the targeting and pursuit of me. The elected officials and the lawyer’s investigations all confirmed the facts; I was a target by the CFTC, NFA and other Government officials that do their bidding.
On or about February 2008, my attorney at the time, Donald Pupke, established Alnbri Management, LLC (“Alnbri”) in New York. The goal of establishing Alnbri was that it was to be the new GP of HF II, LP. On March 31, 2008, Pupke was given all the documentation of the HF II, LP to change it to reflect Alnbri as the new GP (Exhibit C).
Because I had had a professional relationship with Pupke for many years and his practice was general in nature, I would reach out to him for many legal issues over the years. On April 21, 2008 is an email written to Pupke with the subject line NFA requesting his assistance in bringing a lawsuit against the NFA (Exhibit D). This email shows my state of mind at this time and awareness of the NFA’s corruption and continued pursuit of me. On the beginning stages of starting a new fund, it also should show my understanding that any structured entity would be under extraordinary scrutiny and should be fully compliant of all rules and regulations. In the same week I actually started trading the new fund, on May 19, 2008 is another email to Pupke with the same requests (Exhibit E).
On April 17, 2008, I received an email from Mr. Gregory Zoraian, a Certified Public Accountant and principal of Sasserath & Zoraian (Exhibit F). As per the email is a signed copy of the service agreement with the specific terms they would act as Administrators of the fund. The administrators are a critical component of a small hedge fund. They operate independently to give credibility to a fund and act as a liaison between the fund and the investors. The exhibit includes a letter from the previous week from Zoraian outlining the functions his firm would perform. The Court should notice two very important criteria marked #1 and #14 that Sasserath and Zoraian would perform:
- Review of all legal documentation including the Fund PPM and partnership agreements. Coordinate with US legal counsel.
- Liaison with outside counsel to ensure proper compliance with Anti Money laundering requirements as well as Blue Sky Laws.
v) It will maintain in full force and effect all registrations, licenses or consents of any Government entity or other authority that may be required in connection with its activities and will comply in all material respects with all applicable laws, regulations and orders to which it may be subject.
In April and May of 2008 are emails to Zoraian giving him authority to access the funds bank and trading accounts in order for him to have real time access to provide the limited partners with independent reporting (Exhibits G & H).
Also in April is an email with John Cracraft, a Sales Representative from Interactive Brokers (“IB”), concerning the opening of the trading account for the fund (Exhibit I). On May 28, 2008 is a correspondence with the New Accounts Department of Interactive Brokers (Exhibit J). It actually is in regards to the GP’s account, but it shows the type of exhaustive investigation required by Interactive to even open up a trading account. The Court should notice all the specific questions that Interactive request in regards to compliance with CTA and CPO registration and exemptions. In all likelihood, the NFA red flagged my accounts which lead to extreme vetting. In my 25 experience in opening and trading accounts, I had never been hassled like that before.
In mid May of 2008, the fund started trading. In June 2008, a new attorney was hired, Jay Malloy from Edwards Angel Palmer & Dodge (“EAPD”) from Boston. EAPD was a large firm and was referred by Greg Zoraian. Zoraian also referred an auditor, Paul Finnergan from Holtz Rubenstein (Exhibits K & L). Between Pupke, Malloy and Zoraian, and my own personal experience with other attorneys over the years, it was made known to me that as long as the fund maintained 15 clients or less and did not hold itself out as a Commodity Pool Operator (“CPO”), the fund could trade futures with an exemption. On December 19, 2008 is a correspondence with the funds attorney, Jay Malloy. In that email I ask a question of registration requirements for SEC registration (Exhibit M). Although the email is past the relevant period of the complaint and related to SEC registration requirements, not the CFTC, it shows the constant awareness of compliance and good faith efforts that will be discussed later.
In September 2008, the fund received emails from the “Surveillance” Department of Interactive Brokers (“IB”) closing the account (Exhibit N & O). In the Exhibit N email, IB explained that “certain statements about investment returns on the Alnbri website that seemingly could be misinterpreted by investors.” It also added, “the proportion of futures trading in the Hybrid Fund account appeared to be potentially inconsistent with the terms of Hybrid II’s exemption from registration.”
The fund had just passed 15 clients at the time and already had opened clearing relationships with Penson Financial Services and Merrill Lynch Prime Brokerage which it subsequently used for the balance of the funds life. So, closing the account was not fatal for the limited partners of the fund, but troublesome in many ways.
Firstly and most critically, the fund had surpassed the 15 client threshold and the fund never traded futures again with any clearing firm. Secondly, the fund and GP had accounts open with IB for less than six months and I have included just a few of the correspondences that show the CFTC and NFA were behind the targeting and harassment of the fund. IB’s reasoning for closing the account based on website “postings” were obviously false. The fund did indeed make the returns it stated on the website and that is backed by the administrators, auditors and also oppressive subpoena’s at a later date by the SEC and CFTC. The returns are even detailed in the CFTC’s complaint in December 2010. If the fund did breach the exemption limits innocently in 2008, but never traded futures again, the Court has to ask why the SEC and CFTC only started a full court press of subpoenas in August 2009.
In addition to subpoenas issued to myself, the administrators, auditors, banks, clearing firms, lawyers, etc., unprecedented subpoenas were issued to the limited partners of the fund. One subpoena, issued by the CFTC, was sent to Phil Calderone, a lifelong friend and limited partner (Exhibit P). In addition to the subpoena, Mr. Calderone was contacted directly by CFTC attorney Elizabeth Brennan asking for “any dirt on Mr. McCrudden” and then pleading with him, “don’t tell Mr. McCrudden we were asking about him.” Clearly, the CFTC were interested in more than fact finding and were hell bent on having the successful fund be closed. At the time, the HF II, LP was ranked second in the world for performance for multi strategy funds according to multiple independent databases like Bloomberg. It is well known that assets under management are the livelihood of any fund. Getting a scary subpoena and hearing scary things from Government officials has a negative effect on investors, and history has shown that redemptions come quickly thereafter. The efforts by the SEC and CFTC were successful in closing the fund in December 2009. A fund that did not have one customer complaint. A fund that made a net audited 99.6% return in 2008 when the world was embroiled in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. A fund that made a net audited 37% return in 2009. SEC attorney James Bresnicky contacted me in August 2009 and when I asked him why he was investigating the fund, he said, “because the returns were too good. to believe”
On July 8, 2010, I was deposed by CFTC attorney, Timothy Mulreaney and Joseph Rosenberg, two attorneys who put their names to the complaint along with Sophia Siddiqui. James Bresnicky from the SEC was also there, but asked no questions. They held the deposition at the US Attorney’s Office in New York. The CFTC has offices in New York, so it didn’t get lost on me or my attorney why they chose that venue.
- CFTC v Boston Trading Advisors, LLC, Thomas E. Brazil and Andrew Preston (CFTC Docket No. 04-03). (Exhibit Q)
The Boston Advisors case was both brought and settled on the same day as an Administrative case before the CFTC. The Court can read the entirety of the proceedings, but in general, Boston Advisors and its principals Thomas Brazil and Andrew Preston operated a Commodity Pool in 2002 to 2003 when the case was brought without proper registrations or exemptions.
The CFTC stated in its press release, “At the time Boston Trading and BTP were formed, Preston and Brazil sought advice of counsel regarding registration requirements, and were advised that registration was not necessary. Additionally, in October 2002, Boston Trading hired a consultant to advise them on regulatory matters, including expanding and marketing their business. The Consultant, a registrant, informed Preston and Brazil that they did not have to register as a CPO since they had less than 15 investors. Similarly, Boston Trading later consulted with a self-described “compliance specialist” who advised Preston and Brazil that they did not have to register as a CPO until they had 15 investors.”
What is critical for the Court to consider, is that Brazil and Preston weren’t even charged as Control Person’s under CEA 13(b) (7 U.S.C. 13c (b)). The “registrant” who “advised” them was not charged with anything either. As I have written before about this case, the innocent violations were not performed in bad faith. Not done in malice. Intent was not fraudulent. They did not “knowingly and willfully” violate the law and allow the violations to continue. They did not act negligently, never mind recklessly. They did not “induce” anyone to violate the law. In fact, as I wrote recently in Document 176, the Commodity Exchange Act allows for Commodity Trading Advisors (CTA’s) to manage 15 clients or less without registration, so it is a common innocent error.
The CFTC settled with Boston Advisors for $10k. They allowed it to register. In fact, the NFA registered both Boston Advisors and Andrew Preston in October 2003, the exact same month as the settlement. Thomas Brazil, who was previously registered with Citibank and JP Morgan, never registered again with the CFTC/NFA. Andrew Preston and Boston Advisors operated the fund until 2008 in which they withdrew registrations. In 2016, Preston again registered with the NFA/CFTC for Mark Anthony Trading, LLC and his stated role was, “Chief Compliance Officer.” Suspiciously, Preston withdrew his registration last month.
Let me be clear to the Court, what the NFA and CFTC did in this case was 100% correct as far as I can see. Hopefully, their investigation showed no proof of evil intent or mens rea, and they chose to not charge Preston and Brazil as controlling persons, because after thoughtful debate, they knew their actions did not constitute a violation of the controlling person statute. Preston was able to manage his fund, make a living, and the monetary slap of the wrist obviously did not inhibit him from making a living, pursuing his dreams, and even becoming a Chief Compliance Officer.
- Monieson v. CFTC 996 F. 2d 852 – Court of Appeals, 7th Cir. 1993
- CFTC v. Driver, 877 F. Supp 2d 968 – Dist. Court, CD California 2012
The above case consists of massive fraud over 3 years dating from 2006 to 2009. It is a typical ponzi scheme where the culprits raise capital, and use most or all the money on personal expenses and luxuries. This case involved over a 100 investors and over $14mm. The complaint was not even filed until 2012 when investors filed a complaint and had not received back their investment. When you look at cases like this, or infamous cases like Bernie Madoff, Nicholas Cosmo (09-CR-0255 Hurley’s Case) or Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. which will be highlighted next, that occur over many years, and contrast to the targeting and harassment of my case, hopefully the Court, as a representative and proxy for the citizens of this country, will be as outraged as I have been over 20 years.
- US v. Wassendorf, 12-CR-2012, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa
- CFTC v. Merrill Lynch, CFTC Docket No. 99-11, May 1999
I highlight this case for a number of reasons:
- My first hedge fund, a registered CPO in 1996, was the victim of this fraud. My understanding of this case lead me to contact the lawyers in the class action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch and others, become a lead Plaintiff and to coordinate with Scotland Yard to help them prosecute their case in the UK. The longevity of the fraud, lasting many years, defrauding tens of thousands of investments, lead to many classes of victims. In May 2003, the class action lawsuit was settled and my participation resulted in my investors getting back $900k, which was $100k more than they originally invested. My efforts also compensated many other victims involved in the class. The US Regulators, the CFTC and NFA, have targeted and pursued me on behalf of large industry participants ever since.
- This case highlights exactly the definition of what “Regulatory Capture” means. The complaint lays out tremendous egregious violations by large firms protected by Government officials for personal reasons. In what continues to this day, egregious violations of law are settled and brought on the same day. Lawyers representing the Defendants are more than likely to have worked at the regulator prior and know all the people, and in many cases, actually hired the enforcement lawyers or know higher ranking officials. This constant revolving door of private-public service enriches the legal community and is basically collusive extorting on a large scale. Since the large companies are publicly traded companies, the actually payer of penalties is the innocent shareholders, and this type of “penalty” is deemed a cost of doing business. What is most critical and important to my case, is the lack of charges against any actual violators of the law. Some “phantom” people actually committed the violations. The complaint states Merrill Lynch “aided and abetted” Sumitomo Corporation in the fraud. The complaint states, “employees of Merrill Lynch approved two methods of financing the manipulators warrant taking operation.” But it fails to name the employees, nor charge a single person as a control person for what are the most serious allegations you can have in the futures markets.
- Merrill Lynch is fined $15mm, but there are no calculations of how much monetary damage the manipulation and fraud caused the markets. To Merrill Lynch, they made hundreds of millions on the copper fraud not calculating all the other ways through derivatives and securities they could make money off of the fraud. $15mm is a rounding error. In all likelihood, the damage would be unknown and involve hundreds of billions of dollars because it lasted so many years. What should be important to the Court is that there are no trading bans. None. Merrill Lynch and others never stopped trading in the futures industry and incredibly copper uninhibited.
- CFTC v. Steven A. Cohen, CFTC Docket No. SD 16-01, August 16, 2016
- Control Person Statute CEA 13(b) 7 U.S.C. 13c(b)
The statute provides as follows:
“Any person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person who has violated any provision of this chapter may be held liable for such violation in any action brought by the Commission to the same extent as such controlled person. In such action, the Commission has the burden of proving that the controlling person did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the act or acts constituting the violation.”
The statute was originated vaguely on securities laws, 15 USC 77 and 78(a) with the primary difference being that in the securities laws, Defendants must prove good faith, whereas the CFTC has the burden of proving lack of good faith. This is why Denis Hurley’s corrupt involvement in these cases were critical in not allowing the Defendants motions for dismissing this case early and allowing it to continue for 7 years. The CFTC never had a case against Vincent McCrudden and everyone familiar with the case knew it.
A fundamental purpose of Section 13(b) is to allow the Commission to reach behind the corporate entity to the controlling individuals of the corporation and to impose liability for violations of the Act directly on such individuals as well as on the corporation itself. (Apache Trading Corp., [1990-1992 Transfer Binder] Comm.Fut.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 25,251 at 38,794 (CFTC March 11, 1992). Furthermore, it held accountable senior officials for violations of subordinates if they knew about it. Subsequently, it was defined as officers who, “knowingly and willfully knew they were in violation and allowed for it to continue.” Furthermore, it is the CFTCs burden to show that the controlling person “had actual or constructive knowledge of the core activities that constitute the violation at issue and allowed them to continue.” (Spiegel, [1987-1990 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 24,103 at 34,767 (CFTC Jan. 12, 1988). In subsequent cases, the Courts found that the controlling person must not only act in bad faith, not only willfully and knowingly know about the core violations and allow them to continue, not only induce the violations to continue and not just act negligently, but recklessly. (G.A. Thompson, 636 F.2d at 959, citing Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 209 n. 28, 96 S. Ct. 1375, 1388 n. 28, 47 L. Ed. 2d 668). These are the foundation burdens of the controlling person statute that has been argued many times in various courts.
In more liberal courts, they actually included scienter as a burden on the Government which raised the burden to include that the controlling person had the intent or knowledge of wrong doing. In other courts, they used a two prong system. The law was never meant to find liability for any CEO or corporate officer simply because he held a senior position at a corporation. If that were the case, most CEO’s at major financial firms would be in prison. So, some courts first and foremost determined if the controlling person was even in a position to oversee the act or acts of the violations. This of course is discriminatory against small firms because there are no layers of protection. Still yet, the second part of the two pronged test was still a significant burden on the Government. The Government must prove, “that a controlling person possessed specific control which is the ability to control the specific transaction or activity upon which the primary violation was predicated.” (Monieson v CFTC, 996 F.2d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 1993).
Even in the most biased, most partial interpretation of the law, no court could find Vincent McCrudden liable as a control person for the simple registration violations, never mind penalize him.
All the above argument and previous pleadings by Vincent McCrudden show significant good faith to be compliant with all state, federal and regulatory rules and regulations. Nothing in 2005, 2008, 2011 or the present has changed any of those facts. On July 29,2016, my attorney Donald Pupke wrote a letter briefly explaining his role during the time of formation of Alnbri and the HFII, LP in early 2008 (Exhibit S). Pupke writes:
“It is my impression that during that time (Spring 2008), as always, Mr. McCrudden was very careful and conscientious in performing his due diligence regarding the proper registration and licensing of his funds. He always retained specialized counsel to ensure that the funds would be properly registered and organized and he acted with good faith in that regard.”
This is an unusual case. The Court is being asked to find if there should even be a penalty on no findings of guilt of any violations of the Defendants. The Court simply has a signed consent order with a ‘statement of facts” that was signed under duress and quite simply because the Defendants in this case were denied due process and was told they would never see a jury in this case. After 7 years, enough was enough.
To insure the integrity of the futures markets, the CFTC and NFA have been granted authority to make sure participants, especially when it involves customer funds, comply with all registration, trading, and accounting rules. I have written a plethora of material both to the Courts and publicly about the corrupt roles the CFTC and NFA play in the markets and rig it unfairly towards large participants.
In an independent study, it was found that for a period between 2000 and 2016, the CFTC brought on average about 100 enforcement cases a year. 83% of cases were brought against small firms in an industry where 80% of all trading volume is done by large participants. On the average of all enforcement cases against small firms during this time period, an astonishing 97% of the time the CFTC charged an officer as a control person. During the same period, the CFTC brought only 13% of cases against large firms (That criteria included small FCM’s) and in those small amount of cases, only 16% of the time did they charge an officer as a control person.
As I outlined in document 176, the original process of denying my registrations in 2005 was corrupt. The CFTC and NFA did not honor the decision by a jury, did not hold themselves accountable for giving an alternative accounting method, and deliberately went out of their way to conduct a corrupt process that had far reaching effects to not only Vincent McCrudden, but to his family, friends, investors, ex wife, children and fiancé. The destruction done for purely personal reasons will never be forgiven or forgotten and someday some officials will be held accountable.
What the CFTC did in the Boston Advisors case was the appropriate action, but that’s not what they did in my case. You would have to be blind not to see simply a continued personal agenda for sport that had zero impact on the markets. First they force the successful fund to close, and then even after it closes, they continue to investigate and hold a deposition in July 2010. Then, six months later, file this complaint directly with this Court. The same set of facts outlined in this brief is the same set of facts given the CFTC at the deposition.
The CFTC refused to negotiate a settlement in good faith and this Court was told that multiple times. CFTC lawyer Holl complained that, “upstairs was calling the shots” suggesting that someone or someone’s were making the calls and were anonymous. The CFTC obviously knows the control person statute because they do use it and they had an exact case with the same set of facts in the Boston Advisor case in 2003. But they went ahead anyway. The CFTC and Court have been given financial affidavits of Vincent McCrudden’s financial situation. Pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) 6(d), the CFTC is given discretion to weigh, “the appropriateness of such penalty to the net worth of the person charged, and the gravity of the violation.” The CFTC should have never brought this case to federal court in the first place, but according to CEA, they knew they couldn’t request a penalty for not only the Defendants inability to pay, but also to the gravity of the alleged violation. The CFTC has stated in its own words about this; “a fair consideration of the factors in Section 6(d) should ordinarily result in a civil penalty that does not exceed a respondent net worth, yet deters future violations by making it beneficial financially to comply with the requirements of the Act and Commission regulations rather than risk violations.” Premex, Inc., [1987-1990 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 24,165 at 34,892 to 34,893 (CFTC Feb. 17, 1988). As I stated before, the CFTC did not want to violate CEA in requesting unprecedented civil penalties and trading bans, so they are going to request this Court do their dirty work.
Furthermore, the CFTC has stated in the past about weighing penalties;
“Our gravity determination turns on the synthesis of two distinct components. The starting point is an assessment of the abstract or general seriousness of each violation at issue. The nature of some violations make them generally more serious than other violations. The general seriousness of a violation derives primarily from its relationship to the various regulatory purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act. Conduct that violates core provisions of the Act's regulatory system — such as manipulating prices or defrauding customers should be considered very serious even if there are mitigating facts and circumstances.... Once a violation has been generally located on the statutory continuum of seriousness, the focus shifts to the particular mitigating or aggravating circumstances presented by the unique facts of the individual conduct at issue....
Several factors deserve special consideration in analyzing the individual culpability of a respondent.... A respondent who makes a mistake in the face of an ambiguous statutory duty or in circumstances that are unique and unforeseeable is less culpable than a respondent who knowingly and repeatedly violates the same provisions in an effort to gain a competitive edge.”
In the Merrill Lynch copper case I presented, the violations were about the very “core violations” of fraud and manipulation the CFTC speaks about. But in that case, they don’t charge a single person as a control person. However, in this case, the CFTC requests unprecedented “nuclear penalties” for innocent “simple registration violation” allegations.
In short, the test for determining monetary penalties is to determine where in the spectrum of seriousness the violation falls and for individuals held liable as a control person, it is the amount of fine based on their net worth. For Vincent McCrudden there is no fine because there are no violations as a control person, period. And even if he were liable, the Courts and CFTC’s possession of financial affidavits showing a negative net worth would negate any monetary fine. For MAAM, it had nothing to do with the relevant period. For Alnbri, even if the Court found liability for breach of violating the trading limits of an exemption, a comparable fine would be like the one in the Boston Advisor case of $10k, However, the Court cannot go back in time and give Alnbri their hedge fund back and the ability to pay the fine as it was forced to close. Alnbri also no longer exists. Unlike Boston Advisors, Alnbri cannot be registered within the same month as the fine. In short, even if Alnbri was deemed liable, there is no benefit to society in assessing one and it might open the door for continued CFTC harassment of Vincent McCrudden for them to try and pierce the veil of a corporate entity to hold McCrudden personally liable. No one should want this.
The facts presented in this pleading should show that no penalty should be given. The only question is which Kathleen Tomlinson is going to show up. Will it be the company employee who signs a warrant to a home not lived in four years? Or who states what a fine will be without any facts? Or the person who wrote a 50 plus page thoughtful decision detailing the entirety of the case at that point in considering a default motion? Or like Holl, will she be pressured from “above”? The CFTC will ask for unprecedented fines and trading bans. They will not just request trading bans for Vincent McCrudden and/or any future entities controlled by him, but they want lifetime personal trading bans. Respectfully, this Court lawfully could not grant that.
If this Court would like to send a message, if any, that would evoke change and create an environment to make the futures markets more competitive and fair for small firms, they should fine the CFTC and all the officials who brought this case. Fine the CFTC $58mm dollars for bringing this frivolous case in the first place and wasting this Courts time and tax payer money. As is my experience, the Court has broad discretion in interpretation of the law. It can be very “narrow” in its focus to simply find someone liable when it comes to “letter” of the law, or then very “broad” like Hurley had done to me in the criminal case by using history and characteristics of the defendant to justify a predisposition bias. If this Court wants to be predisposed, then be predisposed by the criminal nature in which entities like the CFTC, Finra and NFA operate. Do not allow officials to come from Washington or Chicago to Long Island and determine which people they would like for you to screw. To affect innocent local investors in a successful vehicle. To waste and affect the time, money and resources of administrators, auditors, lawyers, clearing firms and banks that have better things to do all for simply pursuing personal agendas. This court now has a platform and opportunity to positively evoke real change in the financial markets, use it.
Vincent McCrudden in behalf of Defendants