Client Alert: CFTC Updates Enforcement Guidance Regarding Monetary Penalties, Third-Party Monitorships, and Admissions of Wrongdoing
Publications
November 3, 2023
By: Erin Schrantz, Matt Cipolla, Gregory Boyle, Thomas E. Quinn, Ben Alter
In October 2023, the Division of Enforcement of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) issued an Enforcement Advisory clarifying the Commission’s approach to negotiated resolutions of enforcement actions.[1] In general, the Advisory:
-
- indicates the Commission is likely to seek higher civil monetary penalties, particularly for recidivists;
- clarifies when the Commission will require third-party compliance “monitors” or “consultants;” and
- announces that respondents will be required in more instances to admit to wrongdoing to reach a negotiated settlement.
The Enforcement Advisory is part of an effort to combat recidivism and to counter the reputation of the CFTC as “‘friendly’ when it comes to enforcement,” as Enforcement Director Ian McGinley stated in recent remarks. With respect to penalties, McGinley stressed that “the penalties need to exceed the costs of compliance, to avoid the risk of institutions viewing penalties as an acceptable cost of doing business.” The Commission’s reliance on third-party monitorships is designed to provide “confidence that … unlawful conduct will not be repeated” and that entities will remediate pervasive misconduct. The announcement that “no-admit, no-deny” resolutions are no longer the “default” settlement practice is aimed at “promot[ing] accountability” and “deter[ring] future misconduct.”[2]
Taken together, these steps have the potential to increase the costs for firms of settling CFTC enforcement proceedings, particularly where the firm has already been the subject of an enforcement action. In addition to the possibility of higher monetary penalties and the imposition of a consultant or monitor, a respondent considering a negotiated resolution will also need to consider the potential for admissions of wrongdoing to result in follow-on civil liability, the size of which may exceed the CFTC penalty. While these new enforcement measures may further the CFTC’s goal of deterring wrongdoing, they could also make respondents more reluctant to seek a negotiated resolution.
We discuss each of these points in turn.
Enhancing Civil Monetary Penalties for Recidivist Respondents
Although the CFTC prosecutes enforcement actions through its Enforcement Division, the Division does not possess independent settlement authority, and must recommend settlement offers to the Commission itself.[3] When recommending civil monetary penalties, the Division considers several factors, including “the need to achieve general and specific deterrence.”[4]
Going forward, the Division is “recalibrating how it is assessing proposed [penalties] to ensure that the [penalties] are at the level necessary to achieve” deterrence. This will likely result in the Division seeking higher penalties, “[p]articularly where the Division observes multiple similarly situated respondents violating similar laws in similar ways over time.”[5]
The Enforcement Division is especially focused on targeting “recidivism—i.e., repeated violations of law by the same” person or entity and will consider recidivism to be a “heav[ily]” aggravating factor in its proposed penalties. To determine whether a person or entity is a recidivist, the Division will consider: (a) the extent to which the current CFTC enforcement action overlaps with prior actions, e.g., whether the actions result from the same root cause; (b) the passage of time between repeat offenses; (c) whether overlapping corporate officers were involved in the underlying violations; (d) the pervasiveness of the new misconduct; and (e) the remedial steps taken since the prior enforcement action.[6]
The Enforcement Division is likely to recommend to the Commission that a Monitor or Consultant be imposed as part of any resolution with a “recidivist” entity.[7]
Clarifying the Role of “Monitors” and “Consultants”
When the Commission lacks confidence that an entity will remediate misconduct on its own, it will require the settling respondent to enlist a third party to assist with remediation.[8] The Enforcement Advisory clarifies the CFTC’s approach to third-party compliance “Monitors” and “Consultants,” and the roles and responsibilities of each. Going forward, the Division will seek to impose “Monitors” in cases involving the “most significant and/or pervasive compliance and control failures,” and “Consultants” in “less severe cases.”[9]
When a Monitor is imposed as part of a resolution to an enforcement action, the Monitor (who must be approved by the Division) is tasked with (1) testing the sufficiency of the respondent’s policies, procedures, and controls to prevent recurrence of the misconduct; (2) drafting recommendations; and (3) evaluating the respondent’s implementation of those recommendations. The Monitor submits reports to the CFTC describing the remediation plan and must certify the entity’s completion of the plan.[10]
Consultants will be appointed in cases requiring less oversight. Consultants advise the respondent regarding implementation of remedial measures, but the respondent entity itself reports to the Division on its progress and certifies its completion of remediation.[11]
Ending the Default Practice of “No-Admit, No-Deny” Resolutions
Finally, the Enforcement Division states that it will pursue, to a greater degree than previously, admissions of wrongdoing in negotiated CFTC settlements. Under the prior “routine settlement practice,” a respondent could often resolve an enforcement action with a “no-admit, no-deny” resolution rather than admitting to the Commission’s factual allegations of misconduct.[12]
That is changing. Going forward, the Division will evaluate whether admissions should be required as part of each individual resolution.[13] In public remarks accompanying the release of the Enforcement Advisory, the CFTC Enforcement Director stated that potential respondents “should be prepared for … admissions.”[14] This new approach is consistent with the proposals made by CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero since her 2022 confirmation.[15]
Factors counseling in favor of requiring admissions of wrongdoing will include: (1) the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in which the respondent admits to the underlying misconduct; (2) the strength of the evidence establishing misconduct; (3) the respondent’s pursuit of cooperation credit; and (4) the strict-liability nature of the offense. By contrast, factors counseling against admissions include: (1) the risk of criminal exposure that would result from an admission; (2) the existence of legitimate factual disputes between the Commission and the respondent.[16]
--
Jenner & Block lawyers regularly counsel and defend clients facing litigation and investigations arising out of enforcement actions by the CFTC and other government authorities. We have served as lead counsel in some of the most prominent recent CFTC enforcement actions and related private litigation, with extensive experience defending against allegations of market manipulation and disruptive trading. More information about Jenner & Block’s Markets and Trading practice can be found here. Jenner & Block lawyers have served as court- or government-appointed monitors of numerous global companies and organizations. We also regularly counsel clients who are anticipating the imposition of a monitor or are actively engaged in a monitorship. More information about Jenner & Block’s Monitorship practice can be found here.
Taken together, these steps have the potential to increase the costs for firms of settling CFTC enforcement proceedings, particularly where the firm has already been the subject of an enforcement action. In addition to the possibility of higher monetary penalties and the imposition of a consultant or monitor, a respondent considering a negotiated resolution will also need to consider the potential for admissions of wrongdoing to result in follow-on civil liability, the size of which may exceed the CFTC penalty. While these new enforcement measures may further the CFTC’s goal of deterring wrongdoing, they could also make respondents more reluctant to seek a negotiated resolution.
We discuss each of these points in turn.
Enhancing Civil Monetary Penalties for Recidivist Respondents
Although the CFTC prosecutes enforcement actions through its Enforcement Division, the Division does not possess independent settlement authority, and must recommend settlement offers to the Commission itself.[3] When recommending civil monetary penalties, the Division considers several factors, including “the need to achieve general and specific deterrence.”[4]
Going forward, the Division is “recalibrating how it is assessing proposed [penalties] to ensure that the [penalties] are at the level necessary to achieve” deterrence. This will likely result in the Division seeking higher penalties, “[p]articularly where the Division observes multiple similarly situated respondents violating similar laws in similar ways over time.”[5]
The Enforcement Division is especially focused on targeting “recidivism—i.e., repeated violations of law by the same” person or entity and will consider recidivism to be a “heav[ily]” aggravating factor in its proposed penalties. To determine whether a person or entity is a recidivist, the Division will consider: (a) the extent to which the current CFTC enforcement action overlaps with prior actions, e.g., whether the actions result from the same root cause; (b) the passage of time between repeat offenses; (c) whether overlapping corporate officers were involved in the underlying violations; (d) the pervasiveness of the new misconduct; and (e) the remedial steps taken since the prior enforcement action.[6]
The Enforcement Division is likely to recommend to the Commission that a Monitor or Consultant be imposed as part of any resolution with a “recidivist” entity.[7]
Clarifying the Role of “Monitors” and “Consultants”
When the Commission lacks confidence that an entity will remediate misconduct on its own, it will require the settling respondent to enlist a third party to assist with remediation.[8] The Enforcement Advisory clarifies the CFTC’s approach to third-party compliance “Monitors” and “Consultants,” and the roles and responsibilities of each. Going forward, the Division will seek to impose “Monitors” in cases involving the “most significant and/or pervasive compliance and control failures,” and “Consultants” in “less severe cases.”[9]
When a Monitor is imposed as part of a resolution to an enforcement action, the Monitor (who must be approved by the Division) is tasked with (1) testing the sufficiency of the respondent’s policies, procedures, and controls to prevent recurrence of the misconduct; (2) drafting recommendations; and (3) evaluating the respondent’s implementation of those recommendations. The Monitor submits reports to the CFTC describing the remediation plan and must certify the entity’s completion of the plan.[10]
Consultants will be appointed in cases requiring less oversight. Consultants advise the respondent regarding implementation of remedial measures, but the respondent entity itself reports to the Division on its progress and certifies its completion of remediation.[11]
Ending the Default Practice of “No-Admit, No-Deny” Resolutions
Finally, the Enforcement Division states that it will pursue, to a greater degree than previously, admissions of wrongdoing in negotiated CFTC settlements. Under the prior “routine settlement practice,” a respondent could often resolve an enforcement action with a “no-admit, no-deny” resolution rather than admitting to the Commission’s factual allegations of misconduct.[12]
That is changing. Going forward, the Division will evaluate whether admissions should be required as part of each individual resolution.[13] In public remarks accompanying the release of the Enforcement Advisory, the CFTC Enforcement Director stated that potential respondents “should be prepared for … admissions.”[14] This new approach is consistent with the proposals made by CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero since her 2022 confirmation.[15]
Factors counseling in favor of requiring admissions of wrongdoing will include: (1) the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in which the respondent admits to the underlying misconduct; (2) the strength of the evidence establishing misconduct; (3) the respondent’s pursuit of cooperation credit; and (4) the strict-liability nature of the offense. By contrast, factors counseling against admissions include: (1) the risk of criminal exposure that would result from an admission; (2) the existence of legitimate factual disputes between the Commission and the respondent.[16]
--
Jenner & Block lawyers regularly counsel and defend clients facing litigation and investigations arising out of enforcement actions by the CFTC and other government authorities. We have served as lead counsel in some of the most prominent recent CFTC enforcement actions and related private litigation, with extensive experience defending against allegations of market manipulation and disruptive trading. More information about Jenner & Block’s Markets and Trading practice can be found here. Jenner & Block lawyers have served as court- or government-appointed monitors of numerous global companies and organizations. We also regularly counsel clients who are anticipating the imposition of a monitor or are actively engaged in a monitorship. More information about Jenner & Block’s Monitorship practice can be found here.
[1] See CFTC Division of Enforcement, Advisory Regarding Penalties, Monitors and Consultants, and Admissions in CFTC Enforcement Actions (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/media/9466/EnfAdv_Resolutions/download (hereinafter “Enforcement Advisory”).
[2] See CFTC, Remarks of Enforcement Director Ian McGinley at the New York University School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement: “The Right Touch: Updated Guidance on Penalties, Monitors, and Admissions” (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcginley2 (hereinafter “McGinley Remarks”).
[3] See CFTC Enforcement Manual §§ 6.5; 6.8.
[4] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[5] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[6] Enforcement Advisory at 2-3.
[7] Enforcement Advisory at 3.
[8] See CFTC Enforcement Manual § 6.2.1.
[9] Enforcement Advisory at 4-5.
[10] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[11] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[12] See CFTC, Statement of Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/romerostatement101723/
[13] Enforcement Advisory at 5-7.
[14] See McGinley Remarks, supra; see also Aislinn Keely, CFTC’s Top Enforcer Warns: ‘Be Prepared for Admissions’, Law360 (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1734033.
[15] See Goldsmith Romero Statement, supra.
[16] Enforcement Advisory at 6.
Footnotes
[1] See CFTC Division of Enforcement, Advisory Regarding Penalties, Monitors and Consultants, and Admissions in CFTC Enforcement Actions (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/media/9466/EnfAdv_Resolutions/download (hereinafter “Enforcement Advisory”).
[2] See CFTC, Remarks of Enforcement Director Ian McGinley at the New York University School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement: “The Right Touch: Updated Guidance on Penalties, Monitors, and Admissions” (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcginley2 (hereinafter “McGinley Remarks”).
[3] See CFTC Enforcement Manual §§ 6.5; 6.8.
[4] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[5] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[6] Enforcement Advisory at 2-3.
[7] Enforcement Advisory at 3.
[8] See CFTC Enforcement Manual § 6.2.1.
[9] Enforcement Advisory at 4-5.
[10] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[11] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[12] See CFTC, Statement of Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/romerostatement101723/
[13] Enforcement Advisory at 5-7.
[14] See McGinley Remarks, supra; see also Aislinn Keely, CFTC’s Top Enforcer Warns: ‘Be Prepared for Admissions’, Law360 (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1734033.
[15] See Goldsmith Romero Statement, supra.
[16] Enforcement Advisory at 6.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Publications
November 3, 2023
By: Erin Schrantz, Matt Cipolla, Gregory Boyle, Thomas E. Quinn, Ben Alter
In October 2023, the Division of Enforcement of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) issued an Enforcement Advisory clarifying the Commission’s approach to negotiated resolutions of enforcement actions.[1] In general, the Advisory:
-
- indicates the Commission is likely to seek higher civil monetary penalties, particularly for recidivists;
- clarifies when the Commission will require third-party compliance “monitors” or “consultants;” and
- announces that respondents will be required in more instances to admit to wrongdoing to reach a negotiated settlement.
The Enforcement Advisory is part of an effort to combat recidivism and to counter the reputation of the CFTC as “‘friendly’ when it comes to enforcement,” as Enforcement Director Ian McGinley stated in recent remarks. With respect to penalties, McGinley stressed that “the penalties need to exceed the costs of compliance, to avoid the risk of institutions viewing penalties as an acceptable cost of doing business.” The Commission’s reliance on third-party monitorships is designed to provide “confidence that … unlawful conduct will not be repeated” and that entities will remediate pervasive misconduct. The announcement that “no-admit, no-deny” resolutions are no longer the “default” settlement practice is aimed at “promot[ing] accountability” and “deter[ring] future misconduct.”[2]
Taken together, these steps have the potential to increase the costs for firms of settling CFTC enforcement proceedings, particularly where the firm has already been the subject of an enforcement action. In addition to the possibility of higher monetary penalties and the imposition of a consultant or monitor, a respondent considering a negotiated resolution will also need to consider the potential for admissions of wrongdoing to result in follow-on civil liability, the size of which may exceed the CFTC penalty. While these new enforcement measures may further the CFTC’s goal of deterring wrongdoing, they could also make respondents more reluctant to seek a negotiated resolution.
We discuss each of these points in turn.
Enhancing Civil Monetary Penalties for Recidivist Respondents
Although the CFTC prosecutes enforcement actions through its Enforcement Division, the Division does not possess independent settlement authority, and must recommend settlement offers to the Commission itself.[3] When recommending civil monetary penalties, the Division considers several factors, including “the need to achieve general and specific deterrence.”[4]
Going forward, the Division is “recalibrating how it is assessing proposed [penalties] to ensure that the [penalties] are at the level necessary to achieve” deterrence. This will likely result in the Division seeking higher penalties, “[p]articularly where the Division observes multiple similarly situated respondents violating similar laws in similar ways over time.”[5]
The Enforcement Division is especially focused on targeting “recidivism—i.e., repeated violations of law by the same” person or entity and will consider recidivism to be a “heav[ily]” aggravating factor in its proposed penalties. To determine whether a person or entity is a recidivist, the Division will consider: (a) the extent to which the current CFTC enforcement action overlaps with prior actions, e.g., whether the actions result from the same root cause; (b) the passage of time between repeat offenses; (c) whether overlapping corporate officers were involved in the underlying violations; (d) the pervasiveness of the new misconduct; and (e) the remedial steps taken since the prior enforcement action.[6]
The Enforcement Division is likely to recommend to the Commission that a Monitor or Consultant be imposed as part of any resolution with a “recidivist” entity.[7]
Clarifying the Role of “Monitors” and “Consultants”
When the Commission lacks confidence that an entity will remediate misconduct on its own, it will require the settling respondent to enlist a third party to assist with remediation.[8] The Enforcement Advisory clarifies the CFTC’s approach to third-party compliance “Monitors” and “Consultants,” and the roles and responsibilities of each. Going forward, the Division will seek to impose “Monitors” in cases involving the “most significant and/or pervasive compliance and control failures,” and “Consultants” in “less severe cases.”[9]
When a Monitor is imposed as part of a resolution to an enforcement action, the Monitor (who must be approved by the Division) is tasked with (1) testing the sufficiency of the respondent’s policies, procedures, and controls to prevent recurrence of the misconduct; (2) drafting recommendations; and (3) evaluating the respondent’s implementation of those recommendations. The Monitor submits reports to the CFTC describing the remediation plan and must certify the entity’s completion of the plan.[10]
Consultants will be appointed in cases requiring less oversight. Consultants advise the respondent regarding implementation of remedial measures, but the respondent entity itself reports to the Division on its progress and certifies its completion of remediation.[11]
Ending the Default Practice of “No-Admit, No-Deny” Resolutions
Finally, the Enforcement Division states that it will pursue, to a greater degree than previously, admissions of wrongdoing in negotiated CFTC settlements. Under the prior “routine settlement practice,” a respondent could often resolve an enforcement action with a “no-admit, no-deny” resolution rather than admitting to the Commission’s factual allegations of misconduct.[12]
That is changing. Going forward, the Division will evaluate whether admissions should be required as part of each individual resolution.[13] In public remarks accompanying the release of the Enforcement Advisory, the CFTC Enforcement Director stated that potential respondents “should be prepared for … admissions.”[14] This new approach is consistent with the proposals made by CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero since her 2022 confirmation.[15]
Factors counseling in favor of requiring admissions of wrongdoing will include: (1) the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in which the respondent admits to the underlying misconduct; (2) the strength of the evidence establishing misconduct; (3) the respondent’s pursuit of cooperation credit; and (4) the strict-liability nature of the offense. By contrast, factors counseling against admissions include: (1) the risk of criminal exposure that would result from an admission; (2) the existence of legitimate factual disputes between the Commission and the respondent.[16]
--
Jenner & Block lawyers regularly counsel and defend clients facing litigation and investigations arising out of enforcement actions by the CFTC and other government authorities. We have served as lead counsel in some of the most prominent recent CFTC enforcement actions and related private litigation, with extensive experience defending against allegations of market manipulation and disruptive trading. More information about Jenner & Block’s Markets and Trading practice can be found here. Jenner & Block lawyers have served as court- or government-appointed monitors of numerous global companies and organizations. We also regularly counsel clients who are anticipating the imposition of a monitor or are actively engaged in a monitorship. More information about Jenner & Block’s Monitorship practice can be found here.
Taken together, these steps have the potential to increase the costs for firms of settling CFTC enforcement proceedings, particularly where the firm has already been the subject of an enforcement action. In addition to the possibility of higher monetary penalties and the imposition of a consultant or monitor, a respondent considering a negotiated resolution will also need to consider the potential for admissions of wrongdoing to result in follow-on civil liability, the size of which may exceed the CFTC penalty. While these new enforcement measures may further the CFTC’s goal of deterring wrongdoing, they could also make respondents more reluctant to seek a negotiated resolution.
We discuss each of these points in turn.
Enhancing Civil Monetary Penalties for Recidivist Respondents
Although the CFTC prosecutes enforcement actions through its Enforcement Division, the Division does not possess independent settlement authority, and must recommend settlement offers to the Commission itself.[3] When recommending civil monetary penalties, the Division considers several factors, including “the need to achieve general and specific deterrence.”[4]
Going forward, the Division is “recalibrating how it is assessing proposed [penalties] to ensure that the [penalties] are at the level necessary to achieve” deterrence. This will likely result in the Division seeking higher penalties, “[p]articularly where the Division observes multiple similarly situated respondents violating similar laws in similar ways over time.”[5]
The Enforcement Division is especially focused on targeting “recidivism—i.e., repeated violations of law by the same” person or entity and will consider recidivism to be a “heav[ily]” aggravating factor in its proposed penalties. To determine whether a person or entity is a recidivist, the Division will consider: (a) the extent to which the current CFTC enforcement action overlaps with prior actions, e.g., whether the actions result from the same root cause; (b) the passage of time between repeat offenses; (c) whether overlapping corporate officers were involved in the underlying violations; (d) the pervasiveness of the new misconduct; and (e) the remedial steps taken since the prior enforcement action.[6]
The Enforcement Division is likely to recommend to the Commission that a Monitor or Consultant be imposed as part of any resolution with a “recidivist” entity.[7]
Clarifying the Role of “Monitors” and “Consultants”
When the Commission lacks confidence that an entity will remediate misconduct on its own, it will require the settling respondent to enlist a third party to assist with remediation.[8] The Enforcement Advisory clarifies the CFTC’s approach to third-party compliance “Monitors” and “Consultants,” and the roles and responsibilities of each. Going forward, the Division will seek to impose “Monitors” in cases involving the “most significant and/or pervasive compliance and control failures,” and “Consultants” in “less severe cases.”[9]
When a Monitor is imposed as part of a resolution to an enforcement action, the Monitor (who must be approved by the Division) is tasked with (1) testing the sufficiency of the respondent’s policies, procedures, and controls to prevent recurrence of the misconduct; (2) drafting recommendations; and (3) evaluating the respondent’s implementation of those recommendations. The Monitor submits reports to the CFTC describing the remediation plan and must certify the entity’s completion of the plan.[10]
Consultants will be appointed in cases requiring less oversight. Consultants advise the respondent regarding implementation of remedial measures, but the respondent entity itself reports to the Division on its progress and certifies its completion of remediation.[11]
Ending the Default Practice of “No-Admit, No-Deny” Resolutions
Finally, the Enforcement Division states that it will pursue, to a greater degree than previously, admissions of wrongdoing in negotiated CFTC settlements. Under the prior “routine settlement practice,” a respondent could often resolve an enforcement action with a “no-admit, no-deny” resolution rather than admitting to the Commission’s factual allegations of misconduct.[12]
That is changing. Going forward, the Division will evaluate whether admissions should be required as part of each individual resolution.[13] In public remarks accompanying the release of the Enforcement Advisory, the CFTC Enforcement Director stated that potential respondents “should be prepared for … admissions.”[14] This new approach is consistent with the proposals made by CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero since her 2022 confirmation.[15]
Factors counseling in favor of requiring admissions of wrongdoing will include: (1) the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in which the respondent admits to the underlying misconduct; (2) the strength of the evidence establishing misconduct; (3) the respondent’s pursuit of cooperation credit; and (4) the strict-liability nature of the offense. By contrast, factors counseling against admissions include: (1) the risk of criminal exposure that would result from an admission; (2) the existence of legitimate factual disputes between the Commission and the respondent.[16]
--
Jenner & Block lawyers regularly counsel and defend clients facing litigation and investigations arising out of enforcement actions by the CFTC and other government authorities. We have served as lead counsel in some of the most prominent recent CFTC enforcement actions and related private litigation, with extensive experience defending against allegations of market manipulation and disruptive trading. More information about Jenner & Block’s Markets and Trading practice can be found here. Jenner & Block lawyers have served as court- or government-appointed monitors of numerous global companies and organizations. We also regularly counsel clients who are anticipating the imposition of a monitor or are actively engaged in a monitorship. More information about Jenner & Block’s Monitorship practice can be found here.
[1] See CFTC Division of Enforcement, Advisory Regarding Penalties, Monitors and Consultants, and Admissions in CFTC Enforcement Actions (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/media/9466/EnfAdv_Resolutions/download (hereinafter “Enforcement Advisory”).
[2] See CFTC, Remarks of Enforcement Director Ian McGinley at the New York University School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement: “The Right Touch: Updated Guidance on Penalties, Monitors, and Admissions” (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcginley2 (hereinafter “McGinley Remarks”).
[3] See CFTC Enforcement Manual §§ 6.5; 6.8.
[4] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[5] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[6] Enforcement Advisory at 2-3.
[7] Enforcement Advisory at 3.
[8] See CFTC Enforcement Manual § 6.2.1.
[9] Enforcement Advisory at 4-5.
[10] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[11] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[12] See CFTC, Statement of Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/romerostatement101723/
[13] Enforcement Advisory at 5-7.
[14] See McGinley Remarks, supra; see also Aislinn Keely, CFTC’s Top Enforcer Warns: ‘Be Prepared for Admissions’, Law360 (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1734033.
[15] See Goldsmith Romero Statement, supra.
[16] Enforcement Advisory at 6.
Footnotes
[1] See CFTC Division of Enforcement, Advisory Regarding Penalties, Monitors and Consultants, and Admissions in CFTC Enforcement Actions (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/media/9466/EnfAdv_Resolutions/download (hereinafter “Enforcement Advisory”).
[2] See CFTC, Remarks of Enforcement Director Ian McGinley at the New York University School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement: “The Right Touch: Updated Guidance on Penalties, Monitors, and Admissions” (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opamcginley2 (hereinafter “McGinley Remarks”).
[3] See CFTC Enforcement Manual §§ 6.5; 6.8.
[4] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[5] Enforcement Advisory at 2.
[6] Enforcement Advisory at 2-3.
[7] Enforcement Advisory at 3.
[8] See CFTC Enforcement Manual § 6.2.1.
[9] Enforcement Advisory at 4-5.
[10] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[11] Enforcement Advisory at 4.
[12] See CFTC, Statement of Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/romerostatement101723/
[13] Enforcement Advisory at 5-7.
[14] See McGinley Remarks, supra; see also Aislinn Keely, CFTC’s Top Enforcer Warns: ‘Be Prepared for Admissions’, Law360 (October 17, 2023), available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1734033.
[15] See Goldsmith Romero Statement, supra.
[16] Enforcement Advisory at 6.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026