CFTC Release No. 8235-20 announced that Guidance on factors used in evaluating corporate compliance programs would be published in the Agency’s Enforcement Manual. A prior Release, 8165-20, memorialized existing CFTC enforcement practice in recommending civil monetary penalties (CMPs). These Releases outline the CFTC’s evaluative approaches to penalty recommendations and include:
Gravity of violation
Aggravating and mitigating factors
Other considerations – was misconduct self-reported, remediated, including whether responsible individuals were appropriately disciplined.
“As our historic performance during Fiscal Year 2020 demonstrates, the CFTC does not hesitate to take strong enforcement action when necessary to ensure compliance with federal law,” Chairman Heath P. Tarbert said in a press statement. “The CFTC also will not hesitate to recognize publicly when a registrant or market participant engages in meaningful acts of self-reporting of misconduct, cooperates during investigations, and remediates. Ultimately, the purpose of the CFTC’s enforcement program is to foster a culture of compliance within the marketplaces we regulate. This staff Guidance furthers that goal by ensuring the public understands the levels of recognition the CFTC may provide in its enforcement orders.”
CFTCGuidance Recognizes Importance of Self-Reporting, Cooperation, and Remediation
The CFTC Division of Enforcement (DOE) guidance outlines how, and in what circumstances, its staff will recommend penalty reduction. The Guidance provides a useful roadmap for companies who may be facing enforcement and breaks ground by being published in the Enforcement Manual and becomes binding on enforcement staff. The CFTC Guidance follows a line of similar enforcement policy and practices involving the self-reporting and remediation of violations followed by the SEC, OFAC, DOJ and FINRA. Below are the four potential scenarios and how the CFTC could be expected to respond:
1. No self-reporting, cooperation, or remediation
Where a respondent has not self-reported, cooperated with a Division’s investigation, or remediated in accordance with the self-reporting and cooperation advisories issued by the Division (Advisories), the Division will not recommend that the Commission’s enforcement order publicly recognize self-reporting, cooperation, or remediation. The fact that the Division does not recommend recognition of cooperation does not mean that the respondent was uncooperative or obstructive. Rather, it merely indicates that the respondent did not cooperate in a manner that materially advanced the Division’s investigation or otherwise met the factors set out in the Advisories.
2. No self-reporting, but cognizable cooperation and/or remediation that warrant recognition but not a recommended reduction in penalty
The Division may recommend that the CFTC recognize a non-self-reporting respondent’s cooperation or remediation in its enforcement order without a recommendation that the cooperation or remediation be reflected in the form of a reduced penalty. To constitute cognizable cooperation or remediation warranting this ‘second’ level of recognition, the respondent must satisfy one or more of the factors set out in the Advisories, but the cooperation would not have materially assisted the Division’s investigation in the manner required to warrant a recommended reduction in penalty. It will be insufficient to warrant recognition in this context if the respondent has merely done what is required by law.
In such cases, the Division will recommend the following language be included in the summary of the CFTC enforcement order, with cooperation or remediation being recognized as appropriate to the particular matter: “In accepting Respondent’s offer, the Commission recognizes the cooperation of [name of Respondent] with the Division of Enforcement’s investigation of this matter. The Commission also acknowledges Respondent’s representations concerning its remediation in connection with this matter.”
3. No self-reporting, but substantial cooperation and/or remediation results in a reduced penalty
During an investigation, where a respondent provides a substantial level of cooperation that materially advanced the Division’s investigation in accordance with the Advisories, and/or engaged in substantial remediation to address the misconduct and materially develop or strengthen related internal controls.
On these facts, the Division could recommend the following language be included in the summary of the order, with cooperation or remediation being recognized as appropriate to the particular matter: “In accepting Respondent’s Offer, the Commission recognizes the substantial cooperation of [name of respondent] with the Division of Enforcement’s investigation of this matter. The Commission also acknowledges Respondent’s representations concerning its remediation in connection with this matter. The Commission’s recognition of Respondent’s substantial cooperation and appropriate remediation is further reflected in the form of a reduced penalty.”
4. Self-reporting, substantial cooperation, and remediation results in a substantially reduced penalty
Where a respondent has self-reported, substantially cooperated in a manner that materially advanced the Division’s investigation, and remediated in accordance with the Advisories, the Division will recommend the most significant reduction in penalty to the CFTC.
In such cases, the Division will recommend the following language be included in the summary of the Commission enforcement order: “In accepting Respondent’s Offer, the Commission recognizes the self-reporting and substantial cooperation of [name of Respondent] in connection with the Division’s investigation of this matter. The Commission also acknowledges Respondent’s representations concerning its remediation in connection with this matter. The Commission’s recognition of Respondent’s self-reporting, substantial cooperation, and appropriate remediation is further reflected in the form of a substantially reduced penalty.”
Key Takeaway
The CFTC’s Guidance once formally added to the Enforcement Manual outlines an approach similar to other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bottom line is that regulators have the ability to ‘reward’ companies with reduced enforcement penalties that have established a culture of compliance including written policies/procedures, supervisory structure and oversight including the appropriate internal discipline of actable individuals, self-report misconduct and cooperate fully in their investigations. Therefore, if you think that your company has made a compliance mistake, it is imperative to be proactive in remediating, self-reporting and the ability to establish the facts warranting relief.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Paul Lieberman, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at (201) 896-4100.
Nationwide Preliminary Injunction for CTA Filings Lifted
FinCEN Beneficial Owner Reporting Must be Completed by January 13 for pre-2024 Companies On December 23, 2024, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction that stayed the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act put into place by a federal judge in Texas. The result is that if you are required to file a […]
FinCEN Corporate Transparency Act filings shut down by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
IMPORTANT UPDATE! FinCEN Corporate Transparency Act filings shut down by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), entities that were in existence before January 1, 2024 are required to file Beneficial Owner Reports (BOR) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) before January 1, 2025. Requirements […]
New Intoxicating Hemp Law Will Dramatically Affect New Jersey Cannabis, Hemp, and Liquor Industries
On September 12, 2024, Gov. Phil Murphy signed controversial legislation that will dramatically alter New Jersey’s cannabis, hemp, and liquor industries. The new law aims to regulate the influx of intoxicating hemp products into the marketplace by bringing them under the purview of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC). That means that edibles, THC-infused beverages, […]
Wheels Moving on Reclassification of Cannabis as AG Launches Rulemaking Process
On May 16, 2024, President Joe Biden announced that his administration is committed to reclassifying cannabis. Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Merritt Garland initiated the formal rulemaking process to move cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). “This is monumental,” President Biden said in a video statement […]
Two PFAS Are Now Hazardous Substances under CERCLA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to take significant action regarding the regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS. On April 19, 2024, the EPA released its Final Rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which will allow EPA to use the […]
Could Your EPA Civil Enforcement Matter Turn Criminal?
Parties involved in a civil enforcement matter by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could soon find themselves facing even more serious criminal liability. On April 17, 2024, the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced a new “Strategic Civil-Criminal Enforcement Policy” (Policy). The Policy is effective immediately and applies to all civil and […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
New CFTC Guidance Proposes a Roadmap for Reduced Fines
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently issued new Guidance that makes it clear that companies will be rewarded for good behavior...
CFTC Release No. 8235-20 announced that Guidance on factors used in evaluating corporate compliance programs would be published in the Agency’s Enforcement Manual. A prior Release, 8165-20, memorialized existing CFTC enforcement practice in recommending civil monetary penalties (CMPs). These Releases outline the CFTC’s evaluative approaches to penalty recommendations and include:
Gravity of violation
Aggravating and mitigating factors
Other considerations – was misconduct self-reported, remediated, including whether responsible individuals were appropriately disciplined.
“As our historic performance during Fiscal Year 2020 demonstrates, the CFTC does not hesitate to take strong enforcement action when necessary to ensure compliance with federal law,” Chairman Heath P. Tarbert said in a press statement. “The CFTC also will not hesitate to recognize publicly when a registrant or market participant engages in meaningful acts of self-reporting of misconduct, cooperates during investigations, and remediates. Ultimately, the purpose of the CFTC’s enforcement program is to foster a culture of compliance within the marketplaces we regulate. This staff Guidance furthers that goal by ensuring the public understands the levels of recognition the CFTC may provide in its enforcement orders.”
CFTCGuidance Recognizes Importance of Self-Reporting, Cooperation, and Remediation
The CFTC Division of Enforcement (DOE) guidance outlines how, and in what circumstances, its staff will recommend penalty reduction. The Guidance provides a useful roadmap for companies who may be facing enforcement and breaks ground by being published in the Enforcement Manual and becomes binding on enforcement staff. The CFTC Guidance follows a line of similar enforcement policy and practices involving the self-reporting and remediation of violations followed by the SEC, OFAC, DOJ and FINRA. Below are the four potential scenarios and how the CFTC could be expected to respond:
1. No self-reporting, cooperation, or remediation
Where a respondent has not self-reported, cooperated with a Division’s investigation, or remediated in accordance with the self-reporting and cooperation advisories issued by the Division (Advisories), the Division will not recommend that the Commission’s enforcement order publicly recognize self-reporting, cooperation, or remediation. The fact that the Division does not recommend recognition of cooperation does not mean that the respondent was uncooperative or obstructive. Rather, it merely indicates that the respondent did not cooperate in a manner that materially advanced the Division’s investigation or otherwise met the factors set out in the Advisories.
2. No self-reporting, but cognizable cooperation and/or remediation that warrant recognition but not a recommended reduction in penalty
The Division may recommend that the CFTC recognize a non-self-reporting respondent’s cooperation or remediation in its enforcement order without a recommendation that the cooperation or remediation be reflected in the form of a reduced penalty. To constitute cognizable cooperation or remediation warranting this ‘second’ level of recognition, the respondent must satisfy one or more of the factors set out in the Advisories, but the cooperation would not have materially assisted the Division’s investigation in the manner required to warrant a recommended reduction in penalty. It will be insufficient to warrant recognition in this context if the respondent has merely done what is required by law.
In such cases, the Division will recommend the following language be included in the summary of the CFTC enforcement order, with cooperation or remediation being recognized as appropriate to the particular matter: “In accepting Respondent’s offer, the Commission recognizes the cooperation of [name of Respondent] with the Division of Enforcement’s investigation of this matter. The Commission also acknowledges Respondent’s representations concerning its remediation in connection with this matter.”
3. No self-reporting, but substantial cooperation and/or remediation results in a reduced penalty
During an investigation, where a respondent provides a substantial level of cooperation that materially advanced the Division’s investigation in accordance with the Advisories, and/or engaged in substantial remediation to address the misconduct and materially develop or strengthen related internal controls.
On these facts, the Division could recommend the following language be included in the summary of the order, with cooperation or remediation being recognized as appropriate to the particular matter: “In accepting Respondent’s Offer, the Commission recognizes the substantial cooperation of [name of respondent] with the Division of Enforcement’s investigation of this matter. The Commission also acknowledges Respondent’s representations concerning its remediation in connection with this matter. The Commission’s recognition of Respondent’s substantial cooperation and appropriate remediation is further reflected in the form of a reduced penalty.”
4. Self-reporting, substantial cooperation, and remediation results in a substantially reduced penalty
Where a respondent has self-reported, substantially cooperated in a manner that materially advanced the Division’s investigation, and remediated in accordance with the Advisories, the Division will recommend the most significant reduction in penalty to the CFTC.
In such cases, the Division will recommend the following language be included in the summary of the Commission enforcement order: “In accepting Respondent’s Offer, the Commission recognizes the self-reporting and substantial cooperation of [name of Respondent] in connection with the Division’s investigation of this matter. The Commission also acknowledges Respondent’s representations concerning its remediation in connection with this matter. The Commission’s recognition of Respondent’s self-reporting, substantial cooperation, and appropriate remediation is further reflected in the form of a substantially reduced penalty.”
Key Takeaway
The CFTC’s Guidance once formally added to the Enforcement Manual outlines an approach similar to other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bottom line is that regulators have the ability to ‘reward’ companies with reduced enforcement penalties that have established a culture of compliance including written policies/procedures, supervisory structure and oversight including the appropriate internal discipline of actable individuals, self-report misconduct and cooperate fully in their investigations. Therefore, if you think that your company has made a compliance mistake, it is imperative to be proactive in remediating, self-reporting and the ability to establish the facts warranting relief.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Paul Lieberman, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at (201) 896-4100.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
