Cash FX Group complaint maps the unregistered forex pool

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s September 24, 2026 complaint against Cash FX Group S.A. pleads an unregistered retail forex pool, and it asks a Florida court for remedies that have not been ordered. Release Number 9304-26, dated September 25, 2026, puts the alleged solicitation at over $950 million and participant losses at at least $406 million.

The filing is a set of allegations, not a judgment. This piece uses that complaint and the release, then sets the US commodity-pool rules next to the UK general prohibition and Australia’s retail contract-for-difference limits. The comparison is about where each rule attaches, not about copying one statute into another country. The Australian order does not govern this Panama company. The UK warning is not a fine. Where the complaint is more specific than the press release, the complaint controls.

Key facts

• Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Cash FX Group S.A., The Conversion Pros, Inc., Huascar Jose Lopez Castillo, Ronald Pope and Justin Halladay, Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-2573 (M.D. Fla.). Document 1 was filed on September 24, 2026.
• Release Number 9304-26: over $950 million solicited for a retail forex commodity pool, promised returns of up to 15% a week, minimal forex trading, and losses of at least $406 million.
• Complaint: over 400,000 accounts, more than 6,000 US-resident accounts contributing at least $27 million, less than one percent of funds used for forex, and about 81% of participants lost at least $406 million. Period pleaded: June 28, 2019 through December 20, 2023. No defendant is alleged to have been registered.
• Relief requested, not ordered: injunction, trading and registration bans, restitution, disgorgement, rescission, an accounting from at least July 2019, and a civil monetary penalty capped by 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1) as adjusted under 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2026).

Methodology and sources

Primary documents are Release Number 9304-26 and the 62-page complaint filed on September 24, 2026. The penalty ceiling is 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, the CFTC table as of January 15, 2025, and 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 as displayed on October 1, 2026, which still carries the 2025 schedule. UK texts are section 19 and section 23 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, plus the FCA warning. Australia is ASIC 20-254MR and 22-082MR.

Related:Advisers Act crypto custody proposal opens a self-custody path

The conduct window is June 28, 2019 through December 20, 2023, as pleaded. Rules are taken from pages opened on October 4, 2026, for the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Allegations are not findings. The complaint says regulators in at least 19 countries warned the public, but the passage used here names only the FCA, so the others are not listed. A February 2, 2022 FCA page on CASHFX GROUP LTD / CASHMT4 is a different firm and is not used.

What the September 24 complaint charges

Cash FX Group S.A. was incorporated in Panama on May 22, 2018, renamed from Dulop More Rich Investments, S.A. on July 24, 2019, and dissolved in October 2022. The complaint alleges deposits still came in, with a last known contribution on about May 12, 2023 and the website down on about October 30, 2023. The Conversion Pros, Inc. is pleaded as Pope’s Nevada company. Lopez is pleaded as a resident of Brazil and a Dominican citizen, and Halladay as a Florida resident. The release names the same five defendants.

The pool, as pleaded, offered off-exchange leveraged retail forex through multilevel marketing, at up to 15% a week, using professional traders, bots and artificial intelligence. Paragraph 3 alleges de minimis trading, less than one percent of the funds, with new contributions paying earlier participants and the defendants. Paragraph 41 alleges Lopez’s wallets received at least $121 million, of which he retained at least $96 million, including an exchange account in the name of his wife or girlfriend. Paragraphs 42 and 43 allege at least $15.4 million to Pope or The Conversion Pros and at least $16 million to Halladay. Participants were told to send bitcoin. The counts stay forex-pool counts, not a separate crypto-asset registration case.

A retail forex commodity pool, in the sense pleaded against Cash FX Group, is a pooled vehicle offered for off-exchange leveraged, margined or financed foreign-currency transactions with people who are not eligible contract participants. Section 1a(18) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as the complaint recites it, sets that line for an individual at more than $10 million invested on a discretionary basis, or $5 million if the person is managing a risk. Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) and Regulation 5.3(a)(2)(i) require the operator to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Section 4b(a)(2) and Regulation 5.2(b) prohibit cheating and deception in those transactions. The complaint, Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-2573, filed on September 24, 2026, alleges Cash FX Group never registered, used less than one percent of participant funds to trade, and accepted over $950 million. Those are allegations. The court has not made findings.

Five counts follow. Count One is forex fraud under section 4b(a)(2) and Regulation 5.2(b); the false-report limb in the prayer names Cash FX Group, Lopez, The Conversion Pros and Pope, not Halladay. Count Two is section 4o(1), fraud by a pool operator or associated person. Count Three is section 6(c)(1) and Regulation 180.1(a). Count Four, against Cash FX Group, Lopez, Pope and Halladay, is failure to register under sections 4m(1) and 4k(2) and Regulation 5.3(a)(2). Count Five, against Cash FX Group and Lopez only, is Regulation 4.20: no separate pool entity, funds not received in the pool’s name, and commingling. Regulations 4.21 and 4.22 are alleged as missing disclosures, not as their own counts.

How three regimes gate a retail forex solicitation

A pooled or leveraged retail forex offer can meet a registration rule, a general prohibition, or a product cap, depending on the contract and the client’s location. Cash FX Group is pleaded only in the US column. The other columns are what those texts say, including where they stop.

Sources: complaint, September 24, 2026; CFTC penalty table; 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1; 17 C.F.R. § 143.8; FSMA section 19; section 23; FCA warning; ASIC 20-254MR; ASIC 22-082MR. Last updated: October 4, 2026.

The same solicitation does not meet the same rule everywhere a participant sits. In the United States, the complaint against Cash FX Group pleads registration, fraud and segregation duties for a retail forex pool, including Regulation 4.20’s ban on commingling, and it seeks a penalty rather than announcing one. In the United Kingdom, section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 bars a regulated activity unless the person is authorised or exempt, and section 23 makes a breach an offence punishable on indictment by up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. The Financial Conduct Authority warning of December 11, 2019 says Cash FX Group is not authorised. It is not a fine. In Australia, Instrument 2020/986 caps retail contract-for-difference leverage at 30:1 on a major currency pair from March 29, 2021 until May 23, 2027. That order governs CFD issuers, not this Panama pool.

A foreign badge is not a US registration. The complaint alleges Lopez called materials “accredited there in Panama,” and alleges Halladay cited a supposed licensed broker as proof of trades. Registration and a local licence are different labels. Offshore FX permissions are a different map from the Commodity Exchange Act counts pleaded here.

“Heavy losses sustained by retail clients trading in highly leveraged CFDs and ongoing market volatility during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the need for stronger CFD protections in the product intervention order. The leverage ratio limits in the order aim to reduce the size and speed of retail clients’ losses by reducing CFD exposure and sensitivity to market volatility.”

— Cathie Armour, commissioner, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC media release 20-254MR)

What the filing decides, and what it does not

The named enforcement is Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Cash FX Group S.A. and the four other defendants, signed on September 24, 2026 by Rebecca S. Jelinek, with Anthony C. Biagioli. The prayer asks for a civil monetary penalty “not to exceed the penalty prescribed by” 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1), as adjusted, “see 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2026).” The statute states the greater of $100,000 or triple the monetary gain per violation, before inflation adjustment of the dollar figure.

The CFTC table as of January 15, 2025 lists $227,220 for a non-manipulation violation in a district-court action, for conduct on or after November 2, 2015. These counts are fraud, registration and segregation, not manipulation. The complaint says each material misrepresentation or misappropriation is a separate violation of certain sections. Multiplying $227,220 by a guessed count would invent a fine. No order in the complaint assesses one.

Paragraph 75 alleges that on December 11, 2019 the FCA warned Cash FX Group “may be providing or promoting financial services or products without our permission,” and said to “beware of scams.” The complaint alleges Pope then asked Lopez what to say about “the UK compliance warning.” Whether that proves knowledge is for the court. The FCA page still says the firm is not authorised, and that the ombudsman and the compensation scheme would not apply.

“The Division of Enforcement has continued to refocus on its core mission of protecting the public from fraud and manipulation. This critical action, and the massive fraud it targets, reflects our steadfast commitment to addressing fraud wherever we find it.”

— David I. Miller, director of enforcement, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC Release Number 9304-26, September 25, 2026)

What this means for pools, promoters and compliance teams

Regulation 4.20 requires a separate pool entity, funds received in the pool’s name, and no commingling. The complaint alleges bitcoin sat in wallets the individuals controlled. Section 4k(2) requires registration of an associated person who solicits. Branded videos by Lopez, Pope and Halladay are pleaded as solicitation, including Halladay’s alleged assertion, recorded on or about August 26, 2019, that 70% of the funds would remain the participant’s money and would work in the forex markets. Where the CFTC perimeter bites concerns a different vehicle. This case is pleaded as a pool, with no exemption alleged to apply, which is not a restatement of the exemption text.

“Policing our markets for insider trading, fraud, and other abuses remains a top priority. The Division of Enforcement’s new policy encourages prompt compliance and enhances our ability to police our markets in the most effective way possible. The division’s advisory will provide clarity, promote consistency, and reinforce the division’s commitment to transparency in its enforcement practices.”

— Michael S. Selig, chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC Release Number 9234-26, May 19, 2026)

Selig was describing a cooperation advisory, not Cash FX Group. Absent aggravating circumstances, that release offers a possible declination if a person self-reports, cooperates, remediates, and pays full restitution or disgorgement, or both. The Cash FX Group prayer, by contrast, seeks injunctions, bans, restitution, disgorgement and a penalty.

What remains open after Release 9304-26

The court has been asked for findings, an injunction, trading and registration bans, disgorgement, restitution, rescission, an accounting from at least July 2019, and a penalty inside the statutory ceiling. The documents opened here contain no answer or judgment. Still open are whether trading was de minimis, whether each defendant knew or was reckless, and whether Lopez and Pope are controlling persons under 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Two penalty propositions stay separate until a judge uses them. One is $227,220 per non-manipulation violation on the January 15, 2025 district-court schedule, or triple the gain if greater. The other is the allegation that each misstatement or misappropriation counts on its own. Section 143.8, as displayed on October 1, 2026, still titles that schedule as the 2025 adjustment. This article does not assume a later uplift.

The FCA warning, last updated August 1, 2024, is still only a statement that Cash FX Group is not authorised. ASIC’s retail CFD order runs until May 23, 2027. In release 22-082MR, Commissioner Armour said the extension was to keep the leverage limits for Australian issuers, not to decide the 2019–2023 conduct pleaded in Florida. How Australia tiers FX permissions sits with the other texts on the regulation desk. Release 9304-26 supplies the pleaded record. It does not supply the penalty.

TL;DR

On September 24, 2026 the CFTC sued Cash FX Group S.A. and four other defendants in the Middle District of Florida, Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-2573. Release Number 9304-26 says the complaint alleges a pool that took over $950 million for retail forex, promised up to 15% weekly returns, did minimal trading, and left losses of at least $406 million. It seeks injunctions, restitution, disgorgement and a civil monetary penalty, and it alleges less than one percent of the funds was traded. No penalty has been ordered. The UK response on the record is an FCA warning of December 11, 2019, not a fine. Australia’s 30:1 retail CFD cap is a different rule for different firms.

Frequently asked questions

What is Cash FX Group accused of?

The CFTC alleges a fraudulent multilevel-marketing commodity pool, from at least June 28, 2019 through at least December 20, 2023, offered as leveraged retail forex traded by professionals, bots and artificial intelligence at up to 15% a week. The complaint alleges less than one percent of the money was traded and that new contributions paid earlier participants. Release Number 9304-26 puts solicitations at over $950 million and losses at at least $406 million. These are allegations in a civil complaint. The court has not adopted them.

Has a court ordered a penalty?

No. Neither the complaint nor Release Number 9304-26 imposes a dollar penalty, a ban or restitution. The prayer asks for a civil monetary penalty not above 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1), as adjusted in 17 C.F.R. § 143.8. The CFTC table as of January 15, 2025 lists $227,220 per non-manipulation violation in a district-court case, for conduct on or after November 2, 2015, or triple the monetary gain if greater. Each misstatement can be pleaded as its own violation. Until a court counts them, there is no penalty figure.

Which US provisions does the complaint cite?

Count One cites section 4b(a)(2) and Regulation 5.2(b). Count Two cites section 4o(1). Count Three cites section 6(c)(1) and Regulation 180.1(a). Count Four cites sections 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), 4m(1) and 4k(2), and Regulation 5.3(a)(2), on registration of the pool operator and associated persons. Count Five cites Regulation 4.20, on a separate entity, funds received in the pool’s name, and no commingling. Regulations 4.21 and 4.22 appear in the facts as missing disclosures. They are not their own count in the prayer.

Did the FCA fine Cash FX Group?

No fine appears on the warning, first published December 11, 2019 and last updated August 1, 2024. The page says Cash FX Group is not authorised, and that customers would not have the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Section 23 makes a breach of section 19 an offence, with up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine on indictment. The complaint quotes the warning and reports no UK conviction.

Does Australia’s 30:1 cap apply here?

No. Instrument 2020/986, in force from March 29, 2021 and extended to May 23, 2027, conditions retail contracts for difference, including a 30:1 cap on a major currency pair and a 2:1 cap on crypto-assets. Cash FX Group is not pleaded as an Australian CFD issuer. The Florida complaint pleads a commodity pool under the Commodity Exchange Act. The Australian order is in the comparison because it is a third retail-forex rule, not because it decides this case.

This article is informational analysis only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or investment advice. Regulatory frameworks change frequently and interpretation depends on facts and circumstances; primary documents and official regulator guidance always supersede summaries. Firms should consult qualified legal counsel and their relevant supervisory authority before taking any action based on the analysis above.