Source: cases/15usc78j/f3d-931-966-cftc-v-monex-credit.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_931/0966_01/index.html
This CEA provision is a mirror image of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as a "catch-all clause to prevent fraudulent practices," Chiarella v. United States , 445 U.S. 222, 226, 100 S.Ct. 1108, 63 L.Ed.2d 348 (1980), that authorizes fraud-only claims, see SEC v. Zandford , 535 U.S. 813, 822-25, 122 S.Ct. 1899, 153 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002).
We presume that by copying § 10(b)'s language and pasting it in the CEA, Congress adopted § 10(b)'s judicial interpretations as well.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/931/0966-01 name U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Monex Credit Co. cite 931 F.3d 966 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit date 2019-07-25 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_931/0966_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl sha1=5265aab9df35ab8b9732546e92130adddfc49ce5 chars=30885 # unanimous panel opinion (Siler, J.); one footnote appended at @30818 belongs to the same opinion opinion op : majority by Siler @0..30885 controlling count c1 : Commodity Exchange Act § 6(c)(1) enforcement claim law 15usc78j role comparator posture civil CFTC enforcement action; dismissal of fraud claims under Commodity Exchange Act § 6(c)(1) reversed; Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act cited as the statutory model whose fraud-only scope was incorporated into the CEA result not-decided element scheme : not-reached role comparator count c1 route _comparator pattern borrowing-statute/anti-fraud-prohibition rule @24978..25358 | This CEA provision is a mirror image of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as a "catch-all clause to prevent fraudulent practices," Chiarella v. United States , 445 U.S. 222, 226, 100 S.Ct. 1108, 63 L.Ed.2d 348 (1980), that authorizes fraud-only claims, see SEC v. Zandford , 535 U.S. 813, 822-25, 122 S.Ct. 1899, 153 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). rule @25359..25492 | We presume that by copying § 10(b)'s language and pasting it in the CEA, Congress adopted § 10(b)'s judicial interpretations as well. gloss Ninth Circuit holds that because CEA § 6(c)(1) copied § 10(b)'s language prohibiting deceptive devices or contrivances, it adopted judicial interpretations of § 10(b) that reach fraud alone without requiring market manipulation. No claim under § 10(b) itself is decided. misfit 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) is cited as a statutory comparator and model for CEA § 6(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. § 9(1)). No element of § 10(b) is applied to the defendants' conduct directly; holding is not-reached under role comparator.