US COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COM'N v. States

674 F. Supp. 2d 1311
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedNovember 2, 2009
DocketCase No. 08-22027-CIV
StatusPublished

This text of 674 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (US COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COM'N v. States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
US COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COM'N v. States, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (S.D. Fla. 2009).

Opinion

674 F.Supp.2d 1311 (2009)

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
Robin STATES (a/k/a Gregory Hampton), d/b/a Infinity Online Investors Group; and Bernadette Bowden (a/k/a Bernadette States), Defendants, and
Paul States, Relief Defendant.

Case No. 08-22027-CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

November 2, 2009.

*1312 Alan Edelman, James H. Holl, III, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Robin States, Celtic Drive, Canada, pro se.

Bernadette Bowden, Celtic Drive, Canada, pro se.

Paul States, Vancouver, Canada, pro se.

ORDER OF JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY, AND ANCILLARY EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT BERNADETTE BOWDEN

DONALD L. GRAHAM, District Judge.

On July 14, 2008, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a Complaint charging Defendant Bernadette Bowden ("Defendant" or "Bowden") and others with cheating, defrauding, and deceiving investors in violation of Sections 4b(a)(2)(i)-(iii), 4c(b), 4m(1), 4n(4), and 4o (1) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(i)-(iii), 6c(b), 6m(1), 6n(4), and 6o (1), and Commission Regulations 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, and 33.10(a)(c), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, and 33.10(a)-(c).

On August 27, 2008, Bowden was properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P."). Bowden failed to answer the Complaint within the time permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(a)(1). Accordingly, on December 11, 2008, the Clerk of this Court entered a default against States.

The Commission has now submitted its Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Order With Injunctive Relief, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other Ancillary Equitable Relief Against Defendants Robin States, Bernadette Bowden, and Paul States ("Motion") pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. *1313 55(b)(2). The Court has carefully considered the Complaint, the allegations of which are well-pleaded and hereby taken as true, the Motion, and other written submissions of the Commission filed with the Court, and being fully advised, hereby:

GRANTS the Commission's Motion against Bowden and enters findings of fact and conclusions of law relevant to the allegations in the Complaint. The Court further grants the Commission's request for injunctive relief, restitution, and civil monetary penalty. Accordingly, the Court now issues the following Order Of Judgment By Default, Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty, And Ancillary Equitable Relief Against Defendant Bernadette Bowden ("Order").

I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Findings of Fact

1. From approximately October 2004 through approximately September 2005, Robin States ("States"), doing business as Infinity Online Investors Group ("Infinity"), solicited at least 900 individuals from throughout the United States and around the world to participate in a commodity futures, options, Forex and precious metals based high-yield investment program, through, among other means, an Internet website, www.infinity-oig.com, and personal telephone solicitations.

2. Through the Infinity website, States represented that Infinity commenced operations in October 2004, and consisted of a group of three investors with over 22 years of experience in investing "both offline and online." States also claimed that Infinity "regularly [sought] the advice and assistance of some of the best known Investment Managers in the online arena today."

3. On the Infinity website, States described Infinity's investment strategy as follows:

Our team is focused on attaining consistent returns on our client's [sic] investments, while reducing risk of loss. This is done through having a strategic and balanced plan for all investments; the diversification of investments as well as maintaining a reserve fund as an insurance against loss. Our portfolio (as agreed upon by our core group as well as our assisting Investment Brokers/Analysts) is focused on trading in FOREX, Futures, Options and Precious Metals. (emphasis added)

4. Through the Infinity website, States guaranteed prospective participants daily fixed-percentage profits based on the amount of money invested and the amount of time a participant was willing to wait before being able to withdraw profits. States offered several investment plans, including the Bronze Plan, the Silver Plan, the Gold Plan, and the Platinum Plan with varying investment minimums, daily rates of return and profit redemption restrictions. Under all of these investment plans, participants could not withdraw their principal for one year from the date of investment.

5. Participants in the Bronze Plan were guaranteed daily profits ranging from 1.25% (for investments of $25-$1,000) to 1.75% (for investments of $5,001 and above) and could withdraw their profits at any time. Participants in the Silver Plan were guaranteed daily profits ranging from 1.5% (for investments of $50-$1000) to 2.00% (for investments of $5001 and above) but could not withdraw profits for three months. Participants in the Gold Plan were guaranteed daily profits ranging from 1.75% (for investments of $75-$1000) to 2.25% (for investments of $5001 and above), but could not withdraw profits for six months. Participants in the Platinum Plan were guaranteed daily profits of 2.00% (for investments of $100-$1000) to *1314 2.50% (for investments of $5001 and above), but could not withdraw profits for one year.

6. In his personal solicitations via telephone calls with prospective and current participants to solicit funds, States misrepresented his identity by holding himself out to be "Gregory Hampton." As "Hampton," States claimed to be one of the three principal owners of Infinity. In fact, the telephone number "Hampton" used to conduct his telephone solicitations was registered to States's wife, Bernadette Bowden ("Bowden"), at an address she shared with States.

7. To create the impression of Infinity's legitimacy, States, in his telephone solicitations, claimed that Infinity's trading was handled by a licensed and registered "financial assets group" in Durham, North Carolina and that Infinity coordinated daily and met weekly with this firm to ensure that the investments aligned with Infinity's strategic plan. States described this firm as an international firm that had been in existence for several years and was licensed "in some of the major centers worldwide," specifically mentioning the United States, Panama, Mexico, and Canada. States also claimed that Infinity was applying to be a licensed broker in North Carolina in order to conduct its own trading and that it was building a new headquarters in Durham, North Carolina to accommodate its expanding operation.

8.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. States
674 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (S.D. Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
674 F. Supp. 2d 1311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-commodity-futures-trading-comn-v-states-flsd-2009.