Why aren’t the checks in the mail? |

Why aren’t the checks in the mail?

WASHINGTON — Ordering lawbreakers to pay fines is one thing. Getting them to pay is a different matter.

The vast majority of penalties imposed in enforcement cases brought by the top cop on the commodities trading beat have gone uncollected.

Over a period of 15 fiscal years, courts and administrative law judges imposed fines of more than $1.8 billion in cases brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Over the same period, the government collected only one third as much — $606.7 million, according to the CFTC.

The gap has varied widely from year to year. In fiscal 2009, the most recent year for which the commission provided data, penalties imposed totaled $99.5 million and penalties collected totaled $17.4 million, less than one-fifth as much.

CFTC enforcement actions typically allege that brokers or other industry professionals lured clients with misleading claims, engaged in Ponzi schemes, churned accounts to extract unwarranted commissions or otherwise misappropriated clients’ funds. The penalties collected go to the Treasury.

The commission’s news releases generally trumpet the amount that malefactors are told to pay.

But the amounts ordered can be little more than notional — even if the government is diligent in its efforts. Often there is little money left to recover, because scammers have spent it.

The fines may be symbolic, such as a 150-year prison sentence, and they can establish a claim to any money the wrongdoers might amass in the future.

For government enforcers, fines can be a way of keeping score, or pumping up the score.

“I think a lot of it is, they sort of like the headlines,” said Jeffrey Barclay, a Chicago lawyer who defends clients charged in commodities cases.

CFTC officials seem undeterred if the accused has too little money to pay, Barclay said, adding that their posture appears to be, ” ‘To the extent he has some money someday, we’ll come knocking.’ ”

A spokesman for the CTFC, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of an agency policy that prohibits employees from speaking on the record, said in an e-mail that the commission “is not a collection agency.”

“Collections are done by the DOJ. Justice is the only agency that can actually do collections,” the spokesman said.

A Justice spokesman gave a different explanation. “Federal agencies, including CFTC, are expected to aggressively try to collect monies due,” spokesman Jessica Smith said. “If a problem with collection exists, the federal agency has two paths of recourse — it can turn to the Treasury Department for administrative collection or the Justice Department if litigation is required to obtain the collection.”

When asked, the CFTC would not disclose who owes the money and how much they owe.

The numbers the commission provided include fines that parties agreed to pay when they settled with the government.

They do not include restitution, the amounts wrongdoers were supposed to pay to compensate victims. The CFTC ostensibly won $1.5 billion of restitution in fiscal years 2002 through 2010, but the agency could not readily say how much of that has been paid, according to the commission’s spokesman.

The Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog, looked at CFTC collection rates in 2005. It reported that, for fiscal 2003 and 2004, the rate for penalties was 46 percent.

The GAO’s numbers for those years differ somewhat from the data the CFTC provided for this story; it is not clear whether there were differences in the manner of measuring.

As for restitution, the GAO found that the commission’s collection rate was much lower — only 6 percent.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.