GrimyTimes.com - The Largest Criminal Database

Alex Vladimir Ekdeshman, Forex Trading Scheme, New York 2017

A federal court has issued judgments against multiple defendants in a $11.6 million forex fraud scheme, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today. The case, originating from a complaint filed in May 2014, centers around a fraudulent, off-exchange foreign currency scheme involving misappropriation of customer funds and deceptive practices.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered orders against EJS Capital Management (EJS), Alex Vladimir Ekdeshman, Edward J. Servider, and several relief defendants including Executive Services of Florida, LLC (ESF), Executive Management of Montana, Inc. (EMM), Michael Vilner, and Alisa Ekdeshman. Default and summary judgments were issued between December 2015 and October 2016.

According to the court findings, between April 2013 and May 2014, EJS, Ekdeshman, and Servider solicited over $2 million from approximately 112 individuals, promising forex trading opportunities. However, the court determined that the vast majority of these funds were misappropriated for personal and business expenses. Customers were provided with false account statements falsely indicating profits from forex trading, despite the fact that no legitimate trading occurred and no profits were generated.

The court ordered EJS, Ekdeshman, and Servider to jointly pay over $2.3 million in restitution to victims, disgorge over $2.3 million in ill-gotten gains, and pay over $7 million in civil monetary penalties. They are also permanently banned from trading and registering with the CFTC, and are enjoined from violating anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Relief defendants Vilner, ESF, and EMM were ordered to jointly disgorge $555,000 in ill-gotten gains, while Alisa Ekdeshman, wife of Alex Ekdeshman, must disgorge $205,375. The CFTC also noted that Ekdeshman was previously subject to a U.S. District Court order in 2013 related to a prior CFTC action, and the current fraud constituted a violation of that prior order.

Source: CFTC.gov

Related Federal Cases


Posted

in

by

Tags: