UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN Overnight Position

Document Sample
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN  Overnight Position Powered By Docstoc
					                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

                         EASTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	                 )    No.
                                          )
                   v.	                    )    Violations: Title 7, United States
                                          )    Code, Sections 6a and 13(a)(5);
EVAN BRENT DOOLEY	                        )    Title 18, United States Code,
                                          )    Section 1343


                                  COUNT ONE
                                  (Wire Fraud)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY charges:

      1.    At times material to this indictment:

                                 Background

            a.    Futures contracts were legally binding agreements to make

or take delivery of a specific quantity of a commodity at a specific time in the

future. All terms of the contracts were standardized except for price. Futures

contracts ultimately were settled either through liquidation by an offsetting

transaction (a purchase after an initial sale or a sale after an initial purchase)

or by delivery of the actual commodity.

            b.    Futures contracts were traded on contract markets (commonly

known as exchanges and boards of trade) designated pursuant to the Commodity

Exchange Act by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the

federal agency established by statute to regulate transactions involving the
purchase and sale of futures contracts. The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) was

one of these designated contract markets. The CBOT was part of the CME

Group, Inc.

              c.   Each CBOT wheat futures contract called for delivery of a

volume of 5,000 bushels. Prices for wheat futures contracts were quoted in cents

per bushel with a minimum price fluctuation of one-quarter of one cent per

bushel. Under the CBOT contract specifications, trading in wheat futures

contracts was subject to daily price limits restricting the amount the price of a

wheat contract could fluctuate – i.e., "limit up" or "limit down."

              d.   The “notional value” of a futures contract was determined by

multiplying the size of the contract and the price per unit. Thus, the “notional

value” of a CBOT wheat futures contract was determined by multiplying 5,000

by the price per bushel.

              e.   Speculators could realize a profit by establishing either a

“short” or “long” position and accurately anticipating a decrease or increase in

price.   Establishing a “short” position involved the agreement to sell a

commodity in the future with the intention to liquidate the position through a

subsequent agreement to purchase the commodity. If the price declined between

the agreement to sell and the subsequent agreement to purchase, the “short”

position realized a profit. If the price increased between the agreement to sell


                                        2

and the subsequent agreement to purchase, however, the “short” position

realized a loss.     Establishing a “long” position involved the agreement to

purchase a commodity in the future with the intention to liquidate the position

through a subsequent agreement to sell the commodity. If the price increased

between the agreement to purchase and the subsequent agreement to sell, the

“long” position realized a profit. If the price decreased between the agreement

to purchase and the subsequent agreement to sell, however, the “long” position

realized a loss.

             f.      Pursuant to authority granted in the Commodity Exchange

Act, the CFTC promulgated regulations that set position limits to protect against

the burdens of excessive speculation, including those caused by large

concentrated positions. 7 U.S.C. § 6a. CFTC Regulation 150.2 prohibited any

person from holding or controlling a position, separately or in combination, net

long or net short, for the purchase or sale of a single month’s CBOT wheat

futures in excess of 5,000 contracts or 6,500 contracts in all months combined.

17 C.F.R. § 150.2.

             g.      CBOT wheat futures contracts were traded on an electronic

trading platform, known as CME Globex, which electronically matched orders

submitted by registered customers to sell or to purchase futures contracts. To

trade on CME Globex, a customer was required to have a relationship with a


                                        3

clearing futures commission merchant ("FCM"), who would act as the financial

guarantor to the CBOT’s clearing house for losses          resulting from trades

executed by the customer.

             h.    MF Global, Inc. ("MF Global") was an FCM and the financial

guarantor to the CBOT’s clearing house for losses resulting from trades executed

by its customers, including its Associated Persons ("AP’s"). To induce MF Global

to act as the financial guarantor for an AP, MF Global required the AP to

present accurate and complete financial information on a Customer Account

Application, including but not limited to assets, liabilities, liquid net worth and

total net worth. MF Global also required the AP to agree to report promptly any

material change in the AP’s financial information. Additionally, MF Global

required the AP to represent that all trades executed by the AP would be at the

AP’s own risk, to maintain deposits in the AP’s account to cover any transactions

and to pay on demand any debit balances in the AP’s account. MF Global has

branch offices throughout the United States, including a branch in Memphis,

Tennessee.

             i.    MF Global provided access to CME Globex through its own

proprietary trading and order entry system, known as OrderXpress. MF Global

provided to an AP a front-end application which was installed and operated on

a computer with a connection to the internet. When an AP would enter an order,


                                        4

that order would be transmitted electronically over the internet to MF Global’s

server, or back-end application, which was located in Chicago, Illinois. MF

Global’s back-end application then would transmit the order electronically to

CME Globex, where the order would be processed for execution. MF Global

assigned a particular customer account number to each AP, and that account

number would be transmitted along with the terms of a particular order entered

by the AP.

             j.   Defendant EVAN BRENT DOOLEY was a resident of Olive

Branch, Mississippi. Defendant DOOLEY was an AP in the Memphis branch

office of MF Global from about September 2006 to February 2008. Defendant

DOOLEY traded futures contracts on his own personal account at MF Global.

At various times from in or about September 2006 to in or about February 2008,

defendant DOOLEY transmitted orders from a computer located at the Memphis

office, as well as from a laptop with an internet connection located in his home

in Olive Branch, Mississippi.

      2.     Beginning on or about August 28, 2006, and continuing to on or

about February 27, 2008 at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to


                                       5

defraud MF Global and to obtain money and property from MF Global by means

of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and

by means of material omissions, which scheme is more fully described in the

following paragraphs.

      3.    It was part of the scheme that defendant intended to trade at the

CBOT in futures contracts in a manner exceeding defendant’s financial ability

to pay for potential trading losses resulting from such trades, thereby

intentionally shifting the risks associated with his trading activity onto MF

Global. In order to accomplish this trading activity, defendant misrepresented

his financial condition to MF Global to secure its clearing services and

underlying financial assurances, as more fully described below in paragraphs 4

through 6. Defendant then placed trading orders, knowing that such orders

were beyond the deposits in his MF Global account and his financial ability to

cover any potential losses resulting from those trades, particularly those in late

January 2008 and again in February 2008, as more fully described below in

paragraphs 7 through 14.

            Account Opening

      4.    It was further part of the scheme that defendant DOOLEY, in order

to induce MF Global to open an account for defendant and act as his financial

guarantor such that he could trade on CME Globex, provided materially false


                                        6

information on his customer account application, namely, defendant falsely

stated that:

               a.    he had a liquid net worth of $250,000,

               b.    he had $50,000 in cash,

               c.    he had $150,000 in an investment in business,

               d.    he had total liabilities in the amount of $30,000, and

               e.    he had a total net worth of $220,000,

when, in fact, his assets and net worth were substantially less than the amounts

claimed.

      5.       It was further part of the scheme that defendant, in order to induce

MF Global to open an account for defendant and act as his financial guarantor

such that he could trade on CME Globex, represented that he agreed to be solely

liable for the potential losses resulting from his trading, even though the

defendant knew and concealed from MF Global that he did not have the financial

ability to cover any significant losses.

      6.       It was further part of the scheme that defendant, in order to induce

MF Global to continue to act as his financial guarantor such that he maintained

his access to CME Globex, intentionally failed to report material changes in his

financial information, including but not limited to additional liabilities incurred

in or about August and November of 2007.


                                           7

      January 2008 Trading

      7.    It was further part of the scheme that during the overnight trading

session starting on January 27, 2008, defendant DOOLEY executed a series of

large buy and sell orders for approximately 1,500 futures contracts, even though

the defendant knew that he did not have the financial ability to pay for potential

trading losses resulting from such trades. At the start of this trading session,

defendant had approximately $482 in his account at MF Global and intentionally

shifted the risks associated with his trading activity onto MF Global. At one

point in the trading session, defendant was approximately 673 contracts long on

March 2008 wheat futures contracts. At that time, the notional value of this

position was approximately $32 million. At the close of the overnight trading

session, defendant liquidated his position and realized a gross profit of

approximately $37,000.

      8.    It was further part of the scheme that on or about January 28, 2010,

when an MF Global representative advised defendant that his overnight trading

was "out of line," exceeded the deposits in his account and put MF Global at risk,

defendant DOOLEY, in order to induce MF Global to continue to act as his

financial guarantor such that he maintained his access to CME Globex, falsely

represented that his trading activity was the result of an error, not intentional

conduct on his part.


                                        8

      February 2008 Trading

      9.    It was further part of the scheme that during the overnight trading

session starting on February 26, 2008, defendant DOOLEY executed a series of

large buy and sell orders for approximately 31,964 futures contracts, including

24,231 contracts for May 2008 wheat futures, knowing that he did not have the

financial ability to pay for potential trading losses resulting from such trades.

At the start of this trading session, defendant knew that he had a negative

balance of approximately $3,000 in his account at MF Global and intentionally

shifted the risks associated with his trading activity onto MF Global.

      10.   It was further part of the scheme that during the overnight trading

session starting on February 26, 2008, defendant DOOLEY executed a series of

large sell orders for wheat futures and thereby established a substantial short

position in May 2008 wheat futures contracts. At approximately 5:17 a.m. on

February 27, 2008, the price for May 2008 wheat futures contract had gone

“limit down” to approximately $10.795 per bushel. By approximately 6:00 a.m.

on February 27, 2008, defendant was short 16,174 contracts for May 2008 wheat

futures, more than three times the CFTC’s position limit for a single month’s

contract. At that time, the notional value of defendant’s short position for May

2008 wheat futures was approximately $872 million.          Further, defendant

established positions in other wheat futures contracts during the same overnight


                                       9

trading session, including the CBOT’s March, July and December 2008 wheat

futures, causing the defendant’s overall position to exceed the CFTC’s position

limit for all months combined.

      11.   It was further part of the scheme that on the morning of February

27, 2008, when the price for May 2008 wheat futures contracts rose rapidly as

defendant attempted to liquidate his short position, defendant DOOLEY once

again executed a series of sell orders. At approximately 10:11 a.m. on February

27, 2008, defendant was short 17,181 contracts for May 2008 wheat futures. By

approximately 10:29 a.m., the price for May 2008 wheat futures contracts had

gone “limit up” to approximately $13.495 per bushel.

      12.   It was further part of the scheme that on or about February 27,

2010, defendant DOOLEY contacted by telephone the MF Global night desk on

a number of occasions and requested information concerning the size of the

positions that he had established during the overnight trading session.

      13.   On or about February 27, 2008, MF Global authorities learned of

defendant’s overnight trading, deactivated defendant’s account and then

liquidated the remainder of defendant’s position. A loss of $141,021,489 was

realized. Defendant was financially unable to cover the losses created by his

trading.

      14.   As a result of the scheme, defendant DOOLEY caused an actual loss


                                      10

of approximately $141,024,494 to MF Global.

      15.   It was further part of the scheme that defendant DOOLEY concealed

and misrepresented, and caused to be concealed and misrepresented, the

existence, the purposes and the acts done in furtherance of the scheme.

      16.   At approximately 11:42 p.m., on or about January 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,


                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely, defendant

DOOLEY’s order to purchase 30 March 2008 wheat futures contract, which order

was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch, Mississippi, to MF

Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding order to purchase

sell futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                        11

                                 COUNT TWO
                                 (Wire Fraud)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 2:39 a.m., on or about January 28, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to purchase 30 May 2008 wheat futures contracts,

which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase sell futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       12

                               COUNT THREE
                                (Wire Fraud)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 8:07 p.m., on or about February 26, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 100 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#10785) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive

Branch, Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a

corresponding order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       13

                                COUNT FOUR
                                 (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 8:45 p.m., on or about February 26, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 100 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#10933) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive

Branch, Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a

corresponding order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       14

                                 COUNT FIVE
                                 (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 10:52 p.m., on or about February 26, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 100 July 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#11442) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive

Branch, Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a

corresponding order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       15

                                 COUNT SIX
                                 (Wire Fraud)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 11:43 p.m., on or about February 26, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 200 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#11601) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive

Branch, Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a

corresponding order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       16

                               COUNT SEVEN
                                (Wire Fraud)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 12:48 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 100 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#11805) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive

Branch, Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a

corresponding order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       17

                                COUNT EIGHT
                                 (Wire Fraud)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 1:45 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 200 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#132) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       18

                                COUNT NINE
                                 (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 3:04 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 200 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#560) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       19

                                 COUNT TEN
                                 (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 3:33 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 300 July 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#718) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       20

                               COUNT ELEVEN
                                 (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 4:39 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 1200 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#1041) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       21

                              COUNT TWELVE
                                (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 5:05 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 300 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#1173) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       22

                             COUNT THIRTEEN
                               (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 5:59 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 500 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#1471) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       23

                             COUNT FOURTEEN
                                (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 10:11 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate and foreign commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely,

defendant DOOLEY’s order to sell 100 May 2008 wheat futures contracts (order

#5955) , which order was routed by computer from his residence in Olive Branch,

Mississippi, to MF Global in Chicago, Illinois, for matching with a corresponding

order to purchase futures contracts at that price;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       24

                              COUNT FIFTEEN
                                (Wire Fraud)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 11:08 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely, a telephone call

between defendant, located in Olive Branch, Mississippi, and the MF Global

night desk, located in Chicago, Illinois, wherein defendant requested and was

informed of his positions on futures contracts, including but not limited to May

2008 wheat futures contracts;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       25

                              COUNT SIXTEEN
                                (Wire Fraud)

       The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    At approximately 11:19 a.m., on or about February 27, 2008, at

Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme,

knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in

interstate commerce, certain wirings, signs and signals, namely, a telephone call

between defendant, located in Olive Branch, Mississippi, and the MF Global

night desk, located in Chicago, Illinois, wherein defendant requested and was

informed of his positions on futures contracts, including but not limited to May

2008 wheat futures contracts;

      In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.




                                       26

                            COUNT SEVENTEEN
                          (Exceeding Position Limits)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    On or about February 27, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, willfully held a short position in May 2008 wheat futures

contracts that exceeded speculative position limits in violation of CFTC Rule

150.2, namely, defendant held a short position of approximately 16,174 contracts

for May 2008 wheat futures;

      In violation of Title 7, United States Code, Sections 6a and 13(a)(5).




                                       27

                             COUNT EIGHTEEN
                          (Exceeding Position Limits)

      The SPECIAL AUGUST 2009-1 GRAND JURY further charges:

      1.    The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count One of this

indictment are realleged and incorporated as if fully set out in this count.

      2.    On or about February 27, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

                           EVAN BRENT DOOLEY,

defendant herein, willfully held positions in March, May, July and December

2008 wheat futures contracts that exceeded speculative position limits in

violation of CFTC Rule 150.2, namely, defendant held short positions of more

than 16,000 contracts for March, May, July and December 2008 wheat futures

combined;

      In violation of Title 7, United States Code, Sections 6a and 13(a)(5).

                                             A TRUE BILL:




                                             FOREPERSON




UNITED STATES ATTORNEY



                                       28


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:24
posted:12/22/2010
language:English
pages:28
Description: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN Overnight Position