# Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Baragosh

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 22, 2002 · 278 F.3d 319

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9813192

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Esfand BARAGOSH, A/K/A Esfandiar Baragosh, Defendant-Appellant, and Noble Wealth Data Information Services, Incorporated, A/K/A Noble Wealth, Incorporated, A/K/A Nobel Wealth, Incorporated; International Advanced Investment(s), Incorporated; Noble Wealth Development, Ltd.; Bull & Bears, Ltd., A/K/A Bull & Bears International Investment, Ltd.; Currex International Corporation, Defendants, v. EBC Fulton Enterprises, Incorporated; Ralph S. Tyler, Parties in Interest
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 22, 2002
- **Citations:** 278 F.3d 319
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Williams
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Williams, Motz
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9813192

## Opinion text

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in Parts I, III and IV of Judge Motz’s opinion, and concur in the result with respect to Part II. I write separately because I believe that the language of the CEA itself, read in the most natural manner, authorizes the CFTC to regulate the transactions at issue in this case. Because the legislative history does not clearly suggest that transactions such as the ones at issue in this case were meant to be exempted from CFTC jurisdiction, there is no need to address a potential conflict between text and legislative history. I therefore concur in the result reached by Part II of the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9813192. Public record. Not legal advice.