Complaint: Cunwen Zhu and Justby International Auctions

- 1 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

JAMES H. HOLL, III (CA Bar No. 177885)

Email: [email protected]

KAREN KENMOTSU (Pro Hac Vice Pending)

Email: kkenmotsu@cftc.gov

TRACI RODRIGUEZ (Pro Hac Vice Pending)

Email: [email protected]

PAUL G. HAYECK (Pro Hac Vice Pending)

Email: phayeck@cftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Telephone: (202) 418-5120

Facsimile: (202) 418-5531

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISION,

Plaintiff,

CUNWEN ZHU and JUSTBY

INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONS,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-4937

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE

AND OTHER EQUITABLE

RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL

MONETARY PENALTIES

UNDER THE COMMODITY

EXCHANGE ACT AND

COMMISSION REGULATIONS

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:1

- 2 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

Plaintiff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or

“CFTC”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby alleges as follows:

I. SUMMARY

1. From approximately April 2021 through March 2022 (the “Relevant

Period”), Cunwen Zhu (“Zhu”) and his company, Justby International Auctions

(“Justby”) (Zhu and Justby together, “Defendants”), while acting as a common

enterprise with other known and unknown entities (the “Scheme Entities”), engaged

in a scheme to defraud at least twenty-nine (29) U.S. customers (“Scheme

Customers”) by misappropriating more than $1,340,000 in connection with the sale

of leveraged, margined, or financed agreements, contracts or transactions in off-

exchange retail foreign currency (“forex”) contracts and/or digital asset commodities,

such as Bitcoin, to U.S. customers who were not eligible contract participants.

2. Defendant Zhu, individually, and as the controlling person of Justby,

accepted Scheme Customers’ funds into Justby’s bank accounts knowing, or

recklessly disregarding, that these funds were intended to be used to engage in forex

and/or digital asset commodity transactions on behalf of the Scheme Customers.

Defendants misappropriated all of the $1,340,000 they received from Scheme

Customers by transferring the funds from Justby’s bank accounts to Zhu’s personal

bank accounts. Once in his bank account, some of the funds were misappropriated by

Zhu to pay for his personal expenses while the majority of the funds were further

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:2

- 3 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

transferred to other bank accounts, digital asset commodity trading accounts and

digital wallet addresses controlled by the Defendants and the Scheme Entities.

3. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Defendants and the Scheme Entities

acted as a single, integrated common enterprise in order to carry out their fraudulent

scheme. The fraudulent scheme followed a similar pattern. Individuals acting on

behalf of the Scheme Entities contacted the Scheme Customers via social media

(hereinafter, “Solicitors”). The Solicitors claimed to have knowledge or inside

information that allowed them to earn huge profits trading in forex and/or digital

asset commodities such as Bitcoin or Ether. The Solicitors offered to share their

knowledge or inside information with Scheme Customers and to help them trade by

providing particularized trading advice.

4. Most of the Scheme Customers were not eligible contract participants

(“ECPs”) pursuant to Section 1a(18)(A)(xi) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act

or “CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §1a(18)(A)(xi).

5. Once Scheme Customers decided to participate, the Solicitors introduced

them to a trading firm (“Trading Firm”) where Scheme Customers set up their

“trading accounts.” The Trading Firm customer service representatives (“TF

Customer Service”) provided Scheme Customers with wire transfer instructions

regarding the bank accounts to which they should wire their funds, such as Justby’s

bank accounts; or, digital wallet addresses if the Scheme Customers were transferring

digital asset commodities. Once received, customer funds were misappropriated by

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:3

- 4 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

the Defendants and Scheme Entities. Unbeknownst to the Scheme Customers, the

“trading accounts” were a complete ruse and no actual trading took place on behalf of

the Scheme Customers.

6. As part of the fraudulent scheme, TF Customer Service “assisted”

Scheme Customers in setting up their trading accounts by instructing them to

download a third-party software application (“application”) onto their cellular

telephone or mobile device. These applications would allegedly allow Scheme

Customers to trade forex and digital asset commodities on legitimate, well-known

trading platforms.

7. In fact, the applications did not interface with a legitimate trading

platform and the Scheme Customers were actually interfacing with individuals who

were also part of the fraudulent scheme. The applications only mimicked the features

of a live trading platform by, among other things, allowing Scheme Customers to

enter and track their trades, interface with customer service representatives, and check

their account balances. The information contained in the applications, such as trade

data and account history, was controlled by the Scheme Entities.

8. Typically, Scheme Customers’ trading accounts showed that their

trading was highly successful and earning excellent profits. These representations

were fictional. Scheme Customers’ funds were not used to trade and consequently,

there were no profits. The Solicitors used these false profits to encourage customers

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:4

- 5 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

to transfer additional funds for trading. Many customers transferred additional sums

with the Trading Firms based on these fictitious profits.

9. Initially, Scheme Customers were able to withdraw small amounts of

their funds. In fact, some Solicitors encouraged Scheme Customers to withdraw

some of their funds as proof that the Trading Firm was legitimate.

10. However, if Scheme Customers attempted to close their account or

withdraw large amounts from their trading accounts, they were met with great

resistance. For example, TF Customer Service would inform the customer that they

could not withdraw funds from their trading account until the customer sent in

additional funds to cover taxes on their profits, which generally amounted to 25%-

30% of the value of the account. The Solicitor sometimes recommended a trade

which would conveniently result in the Scheme Customer’s account having a

negative balance. Alternatively, a trade would suddenly appear in the customer

account which caused a negative balance in the account. Some Scheme Customers

were further defrauded because they sent in additional funds to pay for their “taxes”

or to cover their “negative balance.”

11. In the end, Scheme Customers lost nearly all of their trading funds.

Other than the small withdrawals they may have made initially, Scheme Customers

were unable to withdraw their funds or purported profits from their fictitious trading

accounts.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:5

- 6 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

12. The Defendants misappropriated all of the $1,340,000 sent to Justby by

the Scheme Customers. Zhu misappropriated some of the funds for his personal use.

However, the majority of the Scheme Customer funds were transferred to offshore

digital asset wallets, digital asset trading accounts, and bank accounts controlled by

the Scheme Entities.

13. In this manner, during the Relevant Period, the Defendants and the

Scheme Entities operated an elaborate and well-coordinated scheme to fraudulently

solicit, misappropriate, and funnel funds from U.S. customers to locations within and

outside of the U.S. for the purpose of enriching themselves to the detriment of U.S.

digital asset commodity and/or forex customers.

14. Zhu individually, and as a controlling person of Justby, knew or

recklessly disregarded, that the misappropriated funds were Scheme Customer funds

intended to be used for the purpose of trading forex and/or digital asset commodities.

15. By this conduct, and the conduct further described herein, Defendants

have engaged, are engaging, and/or are about to engage in acts and practices in

violation of Sections 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-

(C), 9(1), and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) 5.2(b)(1)-(3) and

180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2022).

16. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants are likely to

continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, and similar

acts and practices, as more fully described below.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:6

- 7 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

17. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and

Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C), the Commission brings this

action to permanently enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices, to compel their

compliance with the Act and the Regulations, and to further enjoin them from

engaging in any commodity-interest related activity, as set forth below. In addition,

the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties for each violation of the Act and

Regulations, and remedial ancillary relief, including, but not limited to, trading bans,

restitution, disgorgement, an accounting, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such

other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 (codifying federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (providing that

U.S. district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the

United States or by any agency expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress). In

addition, Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a), authorizes the Commission to

seek injunctive relief against any person whenever it shall appear to the Commission

that such person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice

constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order

thereunder, and Section 2(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C), provides the

Commission with jurisdiction over the forex solicitations and transactions at issue in

this action.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:7

- 8 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

19. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e), and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b) because Zhu resides in this District,

Defendants transact or transacted business in this District, and certain of the

transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint

occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur within this District.

III. THE PARTIES

A. PLAINTIFF

20. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent

federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and

enforcement of the Act and Regulations. The Commission maintains its principal

office at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155

21st Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581.

B. DEFENDANTS

21. Defendant Cunwen Zhu is resides in Walnut, California. Zhu is the

chief executive officer and registered agent of Justby. Zhu has never been registered

with the Commission in any capacity.

22. Defendant Justby International Auctions is a stock corporation

established by Zhu in April 2021 in the state of California with the address of 8926 E.

Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA, 91770. Justby was allegedly engaged in the

business of purchasing and selling Asian art, antiques and collectibles. Justby’s

registration was terminated on February 6, 2023. Defendant Zhu acted as the chief

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:8

- 9 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

executive officer and registered agent of Justby. Justby has never been registered

with the Commission in any capacity.

23. During the Relevant Period, Zhu and Justby, together with other entities

under the control of known and unknown individuals, operated as a single, integrated

common enterprise identified herein as the Scheme Enterprise. The Defendants and

the Scheme Enterprise shared common customers, assets, solicitations, and were

controlled by the same individuals.

IV. STATUTORY BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

24. The purpose of the CEA or Act is to “serve the public interests . . .

through a system of effective self-regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems,

market participants and market professionals under the oversight of the

Commission,” as well as “to deter and prevent price manipulation or any other

disruptions to market integrity; to ensure the financial integrity of all transactions

subject to [the] Act and the avoidance of systemic risk; to protect all market

participants from fraudulent or other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer

assets; and to promote responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of

trade, other markets and market participants.” Section 3 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 5.

25. A digital asset is anything that can be stored and transmitted

electronically and has associated ownership or use rights. Digital asset commodities

include virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and stablecoins such

as Tether (USDT), which are digital representations of value that function as

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:9

- 10 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

mediums of exchange, units of account and/or stores of value. Additionally, digital

asset commodities such as Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), stablecoins such as Tether

(USDT) and others are “commodities” as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. § 1a(9).

26. In recent years, as digital asset markets have evolved, the CFTC has

approved the offer of futures contracts on digital asset commodities, including

Bitcoin and Ether futures and options, by boards of trade designated as contract

markets by the Commission, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Cboe

Digital Exchange.

27. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I), in relevant

part, applies to any agreement, contract, or transaction in, or in connection with, forex

that is offered to, or entered into with, a person that is not an ECP “on a leveraged or

margined basis, or financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in

concert with the offeror or counterparty on a similar basis,” subject to certain

exceptions not applicable here.

28. Section 1a(18)(A)(xi) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18)(A)(xi), defines an

ECP, in relevant part, as an individual: (a) who has amounts invested on a

discretionary basis, the aggregate of which exceeds $10 million, or (b) $5 million if

the individual enters into the transaction to “manage the risk associated with an asset

owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred, by the

individual.” Individuals who do not meet these criteria are non-ECPs.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:10

- 11 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

V. FACTS

A. Defendant Zhu Operated Justby as a Shell Company

29. Defendant Zhu registered Justby International Auctions with the State of

California as a stock corporation in April 2021.

30. Justby’s registered address was located in Rosemead, California. Justby

claimed to be engaged in the business of purchasing and selling Asian art, antiques

and collectibles.

31. Zhu is the CEO, sole owner, and registered agent for Justby.

32. In sworn testimony before staff of the Commission, Zhu stated that he

exercised sole control over all of Justby’s operations, including Justby’s bank

accounts and employees.

33. Zhu further claimed that Justby’s estimated expenditures were $200,000

in 2021 and $80,000-$100,000 in 2022. He also represented that Justby’s revenues

were approximately the same, with a maximum sale of around $10,000.

34. During the Relevant Period, Zhu opened and controlled bank accounts in

the name of Justby at multiple banks (“Justby’s bank accounts”).

35. Despite Zhu’s claim that Justby only made sales of a few hundred

thousand dollars per year, the aggregated total amount received into Justby’s bank

accounts during the Relevant Period was in excess of $7,500,000 with approximately

$1,340,000 coming from the Scheme Customers for purposes of entering into forex

and/or digital asset commodity transactions.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:11

- 12 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

36. Despite Zhu’s claim that Justby’s largest sale was for approximately

$10,000, Justby’s bank accounts routinely received numerous cash deposits, checks

and wire transfers in excess of $200,000.

37. Justby lacks the indicia of a legitimate business. Specifically, Justby

does not maintain books and records normally associated with an auction-type

business such as a ledger of purchases and sales.

38. Justby’s bank records do not reflect payments of the type commonly

associated with a business such as a regular payroll, rent, insurance and utilities.

39. Justby’s claimed sales and expenditures do not align with its aggregated

bank deposits of over $7,500,000.

B. The Fraudulent Scheme

40. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Defendants and the Scheme Entities

acted as a single, integrated common enterprise in order to carry out their fraudulent

scheme. The scheme involved the coordinated efforts of three groups:

(1) “Solicitors" who contacted Scheme Customers via social media and pretended to

befriend or romance the customers in order to solicit them to open and fund trading

accounts; (2) “Trading Firms” which purported to set up trading accounts on behalf

of Scheme Customers; and (3) “Shell Companies” such as Defendant Justby, whose

bank accounts were used by the Defendants and Scheme Entities to accept and

misappropriate Scheme Customer funds.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:12

- 13 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

41. This type of fraudulent scheme is commonly referred to as a “Sha Zhu

Pan” or “Pig Butchering” scheme by its operators because it involves cultivating a

friendly or romantic relationship with a potential investor and “fattening” them up

with falsehoods in order to gain the potential customer’s trust and eventually solicit

them to invest in a fraudulent financial opportunity.

42. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Solicitors spent time cultivating a

friendly or romantic relationship with the Scheme Customers, most of whom were

non-ECPs. At least one Scheme Customer, Customer A was in contact with their

Solicitor for over a year before they were convinced by their Solicitor to open and

fund a forex trading account.

43. Solicitors established a rapport with the Scheme Customers by

messaging them frequently, sharing purported pictures of themselves in expensive

locales or with expensive items such as luxury cars. The Solicitor always claimed to

be a highly successful trader and usually attributed their success to an “uncle” or an

“insider” who provided them with inside knowledge.

44. In order to demonstrate their trading success, the Solicitor typically

provided screen shots of their purported trading accounts which always showed

incredible trading results.

45. For example, around September 2021, Customer A was sent screen shots

of their Solicitor’s purported forex trading results, which amounted to millions of

dollars in profit in one day of trading.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:13

- 14 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

46. Once the Solicitor gained the Scheme Customer’s trust, they encouraged

the customer to open a forex and/or digital asset commodity trading account and

offered to share their inside knowledge with the Scheme Customer so that they too

might earn extraordinary returns.

47. Once a customer decided to participate, the Solicitor introduced the

Scheme Customer to a Trading Firm.

48. The Trading Firms instructed the Scheme Customers to download an

application on their mobile phone or device in order to gain access to a forex and/or

digital asset commodity trading platform. Although the trading platforms

recommended to customers were legitimate, the application did not actually provide

Scheme Customers with access to a legitimate trading platform.

i. False Trade Records Provided to Scheme Customers

49. In fact, the application only allowed Scheme Customers to interface with

individuals who were also part of the fraudulent scheme. The application merely

mimicked the features of trading forex and/or digital asset commodities on a live

trading platform.

50. The Scheme Entities controlled the information provided to the Scheme

Customers via the application. The application provided the Scheme Customers with

fictitious information concerning, among other things: profits and losses, account

balances, forex and/or digital asset commodity trading transactions, and deposits and

withdrawals of funds into and out of their trading accounts. All of this information

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:14

- 15 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

was false since no actual forex and/or digital asset commodity trading took place on

behalf of the Scheme Customers.

ii. Scheme Customers Sent Funds to Justby’s Bank Accounts

51. In order to fund their purported trading accounts, TF Customer service

provided Scheme Customers with Justby’s bank account details as well as the bank

account details and digital wallet addresses for other entities who were part of the

scheme. Customers often sent their wire transfers and digital asset commodity

transfers to multiple entities related to the Scheme Entities.

52. For example, between May 5, 2021 through June 23, 2021, Customer B,

who was not an ECP, transferred approximately $198,282 in both fiat currency,

specifically the US Dollar, and digital asset commodities to bank accounts and digital

wallets provided to Customer B by TF Customer Service for the purpose of funding a

digital asset commodity trading account. On or about May 25, 2021, Customer B

sent $58,500 via wire transfer to a Justby bank account and the rest of Customer B’s

investment funds were sent to other digital wallet addresses and/or bank accounts

related to the Scheme Entities.

53. Scheme Customers’ purported trading account balances reflected the

receipt of their wire transfers soon after the wire transfers were sent to Justby. In

total, Justby received over $1,340,000 in wire transfers from Scheme Customers.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:15

- 16 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

iii. Defendants and the Scheme Entities Used Forged Justby Bank

Account Records to Defraud a Scheme Customer

54. TF Customer Service issued falsified bank records regarding one of

Justby’s bank accounts to at least one Scheme Customer.

55. Specifically, on or about July 8, 2021 TF Customer Service falsely

represented to Customer B that their wire transfer of $58,500 never posted to a

Justby bank account and demanded that Customer B send in the “missing” funds. TF

Customer Service sent Customer B falsified bank records which falsely showed that

Justby never received Customer B’s wire transfer of $58,000 on May 25, 2021, when

in fact, the funds were received on that day.

iv. The Scheme Entities Used False Trading Successes to Solicit

Additional Funds from Scheme Customers

56. Once their accounts were funded, the Solicitors provided Scheme

Customers with specific trading advice. The Solicitors instructed the Scheme

Customers regarding exactly which product the Scheme Customers should trade and

when they should enter and exit each trade.

57. Overall, the Scheme Customers were led to believe that they were

earning incredible returns from their trading. Their Trading Firm accounts generally

showed consistent wins with very few, if any, losses.

58. For example, Customer A opened a forex trading account on or about

October 2021. Between October 2021 and February 2022, this account purportedly

accrued profits in excess of $2,000,000.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 16 of 33 Page ID #:16

- 17 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

59. In addition, between May 2021 to June 2021, Customer B’s digital asset

commodity trading account purportedly accrued profits in excess of $500,000.

60. The Solicitors used these purported successes to encourage customers to

deposit additional funds with the Trading Firms. Many Scheme Customers did this

multiple times, including Customers A and B.

61. Initially, Scheme Customers were encouraged by their Solicitors to

withdraw small sums from their purported trading accounts in order to prove the

legitimacy of their Trading Firm.

62. For example, around May 2021, Customer B withdrew $818 from

Customer B’s trading account upon the advice and encouragement of Customer B’s

Solicitor.

63. However, when Scheme Customers attempted to withdraw large sums

from their purported trading accounts or to close their accounts, they were unable to

do so.

64. For example, on or about May 28, 2021, Customer C sent a wire transfer

in the amount of $500,000 from their bank account to one of Justby’s bank accounts

in order to fund a forex trading account. Customer C also sent additional wire

transfers to other bank accounts under the control of other Scheme Entities.

However, one of Customer C’s wire transfer attempts was stopped by their bank due

to suspicion of fraud. At this point, Customer C became skeptical of their

transactions and their interactions with their Solicitor. When Customer C attempted

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 17 of 33 Page ID #:17

- 18 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

to withdraw $1,000,000 from their trading account, TF Customer Service informed

Customer C that it would take up to ten (10) business days to receive the transfer.

Customer C decided to conduct one last trade in their trading account following their

Solicitor’s specific trading instructions and this trade resulted in losses which left

Customer C’s account with a negative balance. Customer C analyzed their last trade

with existing market data and discovered an inconsistency in the market value

between their last trade and the existing market data.

65. The Trading Firms employed tactics to further defraud the Scheme

Customers, such as telling Scheme Customers that they would need to pay taxes

before their funds could be withdrawn. As a result, some of the Scheme Customers

transferred additional funds to their trading accounts to cover these “taxes.” The tax

payments were just a ruse and Scheme Customers were unable to withdraw their

funds even after submitting the tax payments.

66. Apart from small withdrawals, none of the Scheme Customers were able

to withdraw their funds from their Trading Accounts. Eventually, TF Customer

Service stopped communicating with Scheme Customers and the applications ceased

functioning.

C. Defendants and the Scheme Entities Operated as a Common

Enterprise

67. Together with the other Scheme Entities, Defendants Justby and Zhu

operated as a common enterprise with a shared purpose of defrauding Scheme

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 18 of 33 Page ID #:18

- 19 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

Customers. Defendant Justby was a shell company which served no legitimate

business purpose other than to accept and funnel funds to the Scheme Entities.

68. Defendants and the Scheme Entities operated as an integrated whole in

that they shared common control, assets, customers, fraudulent solicitations, and

funneled customer funds to common entities, generally located offshore.

69. The coordinated manner in which Justby interacted with the Scheme

Entities indicates there was a common control being exercised. For example, Scheme

Customer funds deposited into Justby’s bank accounts were reflected very quickly in

the Scheme Customers’ purported trading account balances.

70. When Scheme Customers received a withdrawal from their purported

trading accounts, the funds did not come from Justby’s bank accounts or digital asset

commodity accounts. Instead, Scheme Customers received funds from other bank or

digital asset commodity accounts under the control of the Scheme Enterprise.

D. Defendant Zhu Knew or Recklessly Disregarded that Scheme

Customer Funds were Sent to Justby for Trading

71. As the sole signatory on the Justby bank accounts, Defendant Zhu had

personal knowledge of the origin of funds being accepted into Justby’s bank accounts

and was responsible for the disposition of those funds.

72. Wire transfers from Scheme Customers contained notations indicating

they were sent for purposes of trading and not for other services or goods, such as

antiques.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:19

- 20 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

73. For example, on or about May 25, 2021, one of Justby’s bank accounts

received a wire transfer from Customer D in the amount of $10,000 with the notation

“Investment.”

74. On or about March 17, 2022, Customer E sent a wire transfer to one of

Justby’s bank accounts in the amount of $5,480 with the notation “Commodities.”

75. On or about March 9, 2022 Customer F sent a wire transfer to one of

Justby’s bank accounts in the amount of $10,000 with the notation “Attn: Manager

(name of trading firm) Account.”

76. Defendants also received funds from other scheme entities, which were

unrelated to Justby’s purported “antiques” business. For example, on or about

August 17, 2021, one of Justby’s bank accounts received a wire transfer in the

amount of $160,000 from one of the Scheme Entities with a notation of “Investment

Funds.”

E. Defendants Misappropriated Customer Funds for their Own Benefit

and for the Benefit of the Scheme Entities

77. Defendants accepted the deposit of $1,340,000 from at least twenty- nine

(29) Scheme Customers into bank accounts in the name of Justby and controlled by

Zhu. Defendants and the Scheme Entities did not use the funds to enter into any

forex agreements, contracts, or transactions on behalf of Scheme Customers.

Moreover, Defendants and the Scheme Entities did not use the funds to enter into any

digital asset commodity transactions on behalf of customers.

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 20 of 33 Page ID #:20

- 21 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

78. Instead, the Defendants misappropriated all of the Scheme Customer

funds. Zhu misappropriated some of the funds for his personal use. The Defendants,

however, used the vast majority of the customer funds to purchase digital asset

commodities, such as less-traceable stablecoins like USDC (digital dollar), and then

transferred those digital asset commodities to digital wallets and digital asset

commodity trading platforms controlled by the Scheme Entities. In addition,

Defendants also sent wire transfers to bank accounts controlled by the Scheme

Entities. The Scheme Entities’ digital wallets, digital asset commodity trading

platforms and bank accounts were generally located offshore.

79. Defendants never returned any funds to any Scheme Customer.

Therefore, Scheme Customers lost more than $1,340,000 as a result of the

Defendants’ fraudulent scheme.

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND

COMMISSION REGULATIONS

COUNT I

(Defendants Zhu and Justby)

FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH FOREX

Violations of Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), and

Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3) (2022)

80. The allegations in paragraphs 1-79 are re-alleged and incorporated

herein by reference.

81. Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), makes it

unlawful:

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 21 of 33 Page ID #:21

- 22 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

[F]or any person, in or in connection with any order to

make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any

commodity for future delivery, [ . . . ] that is made, or to be

made, for or on behalf of, or with, any other person other

than on or subject to the rules of a designated contract

market—(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or

defraud the other person; (B) willfully to make or cause to

be made to the other person any false report of

statement . . . [or] (C) willfully to deceive or attempt to

deceive the other person by any means whatsoever in regard

to any order or contract or the disposition or execution of

any order or contract, or in regard to any act of agency

performed, with respect to any order or contract for or, in

the case of paragraph (2), with the other person.

82. Pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iv),

Section 4b of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b, applies to the forex transactions, agreements, or

contracts described in Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C)(i), “as if”

they were contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery. Further, Section

2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), also makes those forex

agreements, contracts, or transactions “subject to” Section 4b, 7 U.S.C. § 6b. Finally,

Section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), makes clear the CFTC

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 22 of 33 Page ID #:22

- 23 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

has jurisdiction over an account that is offered for the purpose of trading forex

described in Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C)(i).

83. Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3), makes it unlawful for

any person, by use of the mails or by any instrumentality of interstate commerce,

directly or indirectly, in or in connection with any retail forex transaction: (1) to

cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any person; (2) willfully to make or

cause to be made to any person any false report or statement or cause to be entered

for any person any false record; or (3) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive any

person by any means whatsoever.

84. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Zhu and Justby, acting as a

common enterprise with the Scheme Entities, violated Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), and Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-

(3), by willfully deceiving or attempting to deceive other persons in, or in connection

with, the offering of leveraged, margined or financed off-exchange retail forex

transactions with non-ECPs, by among other things: (i) misappropriating Scheme

Customer funds; (ii) sending, or causing false trading records to be sent to Scheme

Customers; and (iii) sending or causing false bank records to be sent to a Scheme

Customer.

85. Further, Defendants Zhu and Justby, acting as a common enterprise with

the Scheme Entities, violated Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), and Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3), by

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 23 of 33 Page ID #:23

- 24 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

knowingly and/or recklessly failing to disclose material facts to Scheme Customers,

including by failing to disclose that: (i) their funds would not be used for trading; (ii)

their funds would be misappropriated; and (iii) the applications used by the Trading

Firms were completely fraudulent, no trading occurred and the posted returns were

fake, all in violation of Section 4b(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), and Regulation 5.2(b)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3).

86. The Defendants’ omissions were material because they deprived the

Scheme Customers of valuable information that the customers would have considered

when deciding to commit their funds.

87. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described above using

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including but not limited to: interstate wires

for transfer of funds, email, websites, and other electronic communication devices.

88. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described above willfully,

intentionally, or recklessly.

89. Specifically, Zhu, acting both individually and as agent and officer of

Justby, engaged in the acts and practices described above knowingly, willfully, or

with reckless disregard for the truth. Zhu was an active participant in the fraudulent

scheme. Zhu established his shell corporation Justby; opened bank accounts in the

name of Justby; misappropriated customer funds; used some of the misappropriated

funds to purchase less traceable digital asset commodities (stablecoins) and then

diverted the digital asset commodities and other funds to digital wallet addresses and

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 24 of 33 Page ID #:24

- 25 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

bank accounts which were controlled and operated by the Scheme Enterprise. In

addition, Zhu or someone acting in concert with him, issued false bank records to at

least one Scheme Customer for the purpose of soliciting the customer to transfer

more funds to Justby.

90. Zhu controlled Justby directly or indirectly, and did not act in good faith

and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Justby to commit the acts and/or

omissions alleged herein. Therefore, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

§ 13c(b), Zhu is liable for Justby’s violations of Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), and Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3).

91. Zhu acted within the course and scope of his employment, agency, or

office with Justby. Pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B),

and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2022), Justby is liable as the principal for Zhu’s

violations of Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), and Regulation

5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3).

92. Each act of misappropriation, providing false trading and bank records to

Scheme Customers, and failing to disclose material information to Scheme

Customers, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as

a separate and distinct violation of Section 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), and Regulation 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3).

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 25 of 33 Page ID #:25

- 26 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

COUNT II

(Defendants Zhu and Justby)

FRAUD BY DECEPTIVE DEVICE OR CONTRIVANCE

Violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulation

180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3) (2022)

93. The allegations in paragraphs 1-79 are re-alleged and incorporated

herein by reference.

94. Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), makes it “unlawful for any

person, directly or indirectly, to use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, in

connection with any swap, or a contract of sale of any commodity in interstate

commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity,

any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in contravention of such rules

and regulations as the Commission shall promulgate . . . .”

95. Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3), makes it

“unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with any swap, or

contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or contract for future

delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, to intentionally or

recklessly:

1) use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, any

manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;

2) make, or attempt to make, any untrue or misleading

statement of a material fact or to omit to state a

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 26 of 33 Page ID #:26

- 27 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

material fact necessary in order to make the

statements made not untrue or misleading; [or]

3) engage, or attempt to engage, in any act, practice, or

course of business, which operates or would operate

as a fraud or deceit upon any person . . . .”

96. Digital asset commodities such as Bitcoin and Ether are encompassed in

the definition of a “commodity” under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), and

contracts for their sale are subject to the prohibitions of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3).

97. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii)(I), makes

forex agreements, contracts, or transactions described in Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the

Act, 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C)(i), “subject to” Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1),

and Regulation 180.1(a), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a). Further, Section 2(c)(2)(C)(vii) of the

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(vii), makes clear the CFTC has jurisdiction over an

account that is offered for the purpose of trading forex described in Section

2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C)(i).

98. During the Relevant Period, Defendants Zhu and Justby, acting as a

common enterprise with the Scheme Entities, violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3), by,

among other things, in connection with contracts of sale of commodities in interstate

commerce and forex: (1) using or employing, or attempting to use or employ, a

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 27 of 33 Page ID #:27

- 28 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, scheme or artifice to defraud;

(2) making omissions of material fact to Scheme Customers; and (3) engaging, or

attempting to engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates as a

fraud or deceit. Defendants Zhu and Justby did so by: (i) misappropriating customer

funds; (ii) sending or causing to be to be sent, false trading records to Scheme

Customers; and (iii) sending or causing to be sent, false bank records to at least one

Scheme Customer for the purpose of soliciting funds from the customer.

99. Further, Defendants Zhu and Justby, acting as a common enterprise with

the Scheme Entities, violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and

Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3), by, among other things,

knowingly and/or recklessly failing to disclose material facts to Scheme Customers,

including by failing to disclose that: (i) their funds would not be used for trading;

(ii) their funds would be misappropriated; and (iii) the applications used by the

Trading Firms were completely fraudulent, no trading occurred and the posted returns

were fake.

100. The Defendants’ omissions were material because they deprived

Scheme Customers of valuable information that the customers would have considered

when deciding to participate in trading forex and/ or digital asset commodities.

101. During the Relevant Period, as alleged in paragraphs 1-79 above,

Defendants, directly and/or indirectly, violated Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

§ 9(1), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3). At all such times,

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 28 of 33 Page ID #:28

- 29 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

Zhu did not act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, Justby to

commit the acts and/or omissions alleged as violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3), as set

forth herein. Pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), Zhu is liable as

controlling person for Justby’s violations Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1),

and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3).

102. During the Relevant Period, as alleged in paragraphs 1-79 above, Zhu

acted within the course and scope of his respective employment, agency, or office

with Justby. Pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B), Justby

is liable as a principal for Zhu’s violations of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

§ 9(1), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3).

103. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described above willfully,

intentionally, or recklessly.

104. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices described above using

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including but not limited to: interstate wires

for transfer of funds, email, websites, and other electronic communication devices.

105. Each act of misappropriation, fraudulently providing false records, and

failing to disclose material information to Scheme Customers, including but not

limited to, those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct

violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1)-

(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1)-(3).

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 29 of 33 Page ID #:29

- 30 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court, as

authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to the Court’s inherent equitable

powers, enter:

A. An order finding Defendants Zhu and Justby liable for violating Sections

4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 9(1), and

Regulations 5.2(b)(1)-(3) and 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 180.1(a)(1)-

(3) (2022);

B. An order of permanent injunction permanently restraining, enjoining,

and prohibiting Defendants Zhu and Justby, and any other person or entity associated

with them, from engaging in conduct described above, in violation of Sections

4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C), 9(1), and

Regulations 5.2(b)(1)-(3) and 180.1(a)(1)-(3), 17 C.F.R. §§ 5.2(b)(1)-(3), 180.1(a)(1)-

(3);

C. An order of permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants Zhu and Justby

and any other person or entity associated with them from directly or indirectly:

(i) Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is

defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(40));

(ii) Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that

term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2022)) or “digital asset

commodities” (as described herein), including Bitcoin and Ether, for their

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 30 of 33 Page ID #:30

- 31 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

own personal account(s) or for any account(s) in which any Defendant has

a direct or indirect interest;

(iii) Having any commodity interests or digital asset commodities, including

Bitcoin and Ether, traded on any Defendant’s behalf;

(iv) Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or

entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account

involving commodity interests or digital asset commodities, including

Bitcoin and Ether;

(v) Soliciting, receiving or accepting any funds from any person for the

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests or digital asset

commodities, including Bitcoin and Ether;

(vi) Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the

Commission in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring

registration or exemption from registration with the Commission, except

as provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9)(2022);

and

(vii) Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in 17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2022)),

agent, or any other officer or employee of any person registered, exempted

from registration, or required to be registered with the Commission,

except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9);

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 31 of 33 Page ID #:31

- 32 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

D. An order directing Defendants Zhu and Justby, as well as any successors

thereof, holding companies, and alter egos, to disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as

the Court may order, all benefits received from the acts or practices which constitute

violations of the Act and Regulations, as described herein, and pre- and post-

judgment interest thereon from the date of such violations;

E. An order directing Defendants Zhu and Justby, as well as any successors

thereof, to make full restitution to every person who has sustained losses proximately

caused by the violations of the Act and Regulations described herein, and pre- and

post-judgment interest thereon from the date of such violations;

F. An order directing Defendants Zhu and Justby, as well as any successors

thereof, to provide a full accounting of all Scheme Customer funds they have

received during the Relevant Period as a result of the acts and practices that

constituted violations of the Act and Regulations, as described herein;

G. An order directing Defendants Zhu and Justby to pay a civil monetary

penalty, to be assessed by the Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty

prescribed by 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74,

129 Stat. 584 (2015), title VII, Section 701, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8

(2022), for each violation of the Act and Regulations described herein;

H. An order requiring Defendants Zhu and Justby to pay costs and fees as

permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2); and

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 32 of 33 Page ID #:32

- 33 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY

PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

I. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Dated: June 22, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION

/s/ James H. Holl, III

JAMES H. HOLL, III. CA Bar. No. 177885

KAREN KENMOTSU, Pro Hac Vice pending

TRACI RODRIGUEZ, Pro Hac Vice pending

PAUL G. HAYECK, Pro Hac Vice pending

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Telephone: (202) 418-5000

jholl@cftc.gov

kkenmotsu@cftc.gov

trodriguez@cftc.gov

phayeck@cftc.gov

Case 2:23-cv-04937 Document 1 Filed 06/22/23 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:33