DislikedBuddy, i dont have anymore understanding than anyone else, i am just trying to use a little common sense.Ignored
An initial assessment occurs and either the case is referred to another agency, the CFTC closes the investigation, or, an investigation is opened. During the investigation process, the CFTC will gather data from voluntary interviews or testimony, written requests to various 3rd-parties, administrative subpoenas et al..
After this process, the CFTC and the investigated party will engage in the Wells process. At this stage, the CFTC will initiate a Wells call. Then written notice, listing all potential charges that the CFTC intends to bring against the investigated party. The investigated party then prepares and submits written rebuttal of some or all charges. The CFTC and investigated party meet to discuss and negotiate the proposed recommendations set forth by the CFTC. I believe that the CFTC and MFF are currently in this Wells process.
Moving on, either enforcement action is recommended, or, a settlement is recommended, following review of the investigated party's rebuttal statement. In both cases, the Commissioners will vote on the recommendation set forth by the CFTC, with majority vote governing. Following the vote, the parties will settle, or, the CFTC will begin federal court action.
Based on this process, it is safe to assume that some evidence (and allegations) may or may not be definitive and/or even 100% accurate. But the CFTC does not need to be 100% on all claims, they only need enough to justify the initial investigation. The more that the CFTC can bring to the table, the easier it may be for them to secure a settlement or to make a move for enforcement.
It has been discussed here already, that there may be some agenda at work here, which is nothing new with these regulatory groups (or government, in general), giving more credence to the idea that some claims may be exaggerated, bent or outright fictional - because it is up to the investigated party to disprove the claims, and the CFTC will not be held accountable for acting on suspicion, especially if they have enough evidence in other areas to silence any opposition to their claims.
A similar thing happened with the SEC recently. The SEC sued Binance, alleging that they were operating as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency, as well as commingling of funds etc.. The SEC motioned for a temporary restraining order, freezing all exchange assets. Binance pushed back, stating that the claims had not conclusively proven that they have listed any securities and that the regulator had not shown any proof to support the motion.
A federal judge ruled in Binance's favor to reject the motion, knowing full-well that the order would cripple the business and that the investigation was still ongoing. The fact that the SEC made a move for this kind of motion without having all evidence is just one example of how these regulatory groups work, and how they may do whatever they can to stop any business that comes under their radar. We have seen them go after payment processors, money transfer methods etc. to shape a particular narrative for the purpose of adding weight to their claims and stopping these businesses.
If you follow what happened prior to this and after this, it becomes very difficult to, at the very least, not entertain some idea that conflicting interests and 3rd-party agendas are at play here.
DislikedInstead, these companies should be invited to issue a public statement here on FF that they clearly do not engage in any actions that MFF has been charged with by the CFTC and they are truly in compliance with all US laws and the laws of all European Union Member states.Ignored
1
6
