CFTC Fines SIGNALPUSH Binary Option $100K

An array of legal measures, including a lasting restraining order, financial penalties, and fair reparation, has been mandated in a recent development. This move entails that the defendants are obligated to pay a civil monetary fine of $100,000 and face a perpetual prohibition from functioning as commodity trading advisors (CTA) or associated persons (AP) of a CTA unless they adhere to the stipulations set forth by the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations.

This comprehensive directive emerged due to a legal dispute initiated by the CFTC on 2 September 2020 against BareIt Media and Masten. The decree explicitly outlines that BareIt Media, previously identified as SignalPush, operated from 1 May 2013 to 1 May 2017.

According to court documentation, SignalPush allowed customers to acquire trade signals and automate binary options trading through those signals. During this operational period, BareIt Media lacked the appropriate registration as a CTA, and Masten was not officially registered as an AP of BareIt Media.

The CFTC instigated civil charges in 2020 against BareIt Media's SignalPush, alongside other co-defendants, for encouraging individuals to engage in binary options trading.

The CFTC urges the public to verify trader and company registrations with the CFTC before committing funds by using NFA BASIC. If unregistered, a customer should be wary of providing funds to that company.

The legal action also encompasses Ryan Masten from Texas and his enterprise BareIt Media, also known as SignalPush, in addition to All Out Marketing Limited, Blue Moon Investments, Ltd., and Orlando Union Inc., with each entity being offshore and under the ownership and control of one of the Cartu brothers.

However, a notable response has emerged from Commissioner Caroline D. Pham regarding the CFTC's Consent Order, where she expressed her dissent and brought attention to concerns regarding the change in interpretation of the definition of a “commodity trading advisor” (CTA) within the enforcement action. Commissioner Pham's statement underscores the commission's decision to alter the CTA definition without a comprehensive explanation or including public input.

Commissioner Pham accentuates the weighty implications that modifications to the CTA definition can carry for the industry, emphasizing that these changes should be subjected to thorough examination and robust discussion before implementation. She draws attention to prior instances where shifts in interpretation, lacking in detailed analysis, led to disruptions in both the industry and markets, cautioning against this pattern.

A primary concern raised by Commissioner Pham revolves around the potential inconsistency between the interpretation outlined in the Masten Consent Order and the long-established approach of distinguishing between signal providers and technology providers for CTA registration. She expresses apprehension that this novel stance could impose registration obligations on technology providers, not originators of trade signals, potentially resulting in confusion and market disruptions.