Washington, D.C., Sept. 9, 2025 – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sanctioned Brett Falloon and Flatiron Futures Traders LLC for spoofing in the E-mini S&P 500 and E-mini Nasdaq 100 futures markets at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).
Falloon and Flatiron will pay a $200,000 civil penalty, while Falloon faces a 12-month trading ban from commodity interests. The order also includes a cease-and-desist clause prohibiting further spoofing violations under the Commodity Exchange Act. [CFTC Press Release 9118-25]
The CFTC found that between May and December 2022, Falloon repeatedly placed spoof orders—bids and offers he intended to cancel—alongside genuine orders on the opposite side of the book. His spoof orders, often five times larger than his true trades, created a false impression of market depth, tricking other participants into crossing spreads and allowing Falloon to fill his genuine orders faster and at more favorable prices.
The case is a textbook example of layering and spoofing, long recognized as one of the most corrosive forms of market manipulation in electronic order-driven markets.
Spoofing: Old Tactic, Modern Platforms
Spoofing is not new. Traders have always sought ways to mislead counterparts about supply and demand. What changed is the speed and scale: modern futures markets operate at millisecond intervals, with algorithms capable of submitting and canceling thousands of orders per second.
At its core, spoofing involves three steps:
- Place large visible orders you don’t intend to execute (spoof).
- Place smaller genuine orders on the opposite side.
- Cancel spoof orders after the genuine orders are filled.
This creates a false liquidity signal, pressuring other traders to react in ways that benefit the spoofer.
In the Falloon case, spoof orders routinely outnumbered real orders 5-to-1—a ratio that distorts the very foundation of price discovery.
Historical Context: From Flash Crash to Dodd-Frank
The most infamous spoofing case remains that of Navinder Singh Sarao, the British day trader accused of contributing to the 2010 Flash Crash. His layering strategy in E-mini futures helped exaggerate market stress, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging nearly 1,000 points in minutes.
In response, the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) explicitly outlawed spoofing under Section 747, defining it as:
“Bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.”
Since then, the CFTC and DOJ have prosecuted dozens of cases, from individual traders like Sarao to large banks including Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch, which paid millions in fines for spoofing in futures and Treasury markets.
Yet, as the Falloon case shows, spoofing persists, particularly among smaller firms and proprietary traders seeking quick advantages in highly liquid benchmarks like the E-mini S&P.
Why Spoofing Persists
Despite more than a decade of enforcement, spoofing remains attractive for several reasons:
- Low Detection Probability – Spoofing can be disguised among normal high-frequency order flow, making intent difficult to prove.
- High Reward, Low Risk – Even a few ticks of advantage in index futures can yield steady profits over time. Penalties, such as $200,000 in this case, may not outweigh months of illicit gains.
- Market Structure Gaps – U.S. markets allow near-instant cancellation of orders with no minimum resting times, making it easy for manipulators to flood and withdraw liquidity.
- Technological Arms Race – As surveillance improves, so do spoofing strategies. Some employ sophisticated layering algorithms designed to mimic legitimate activity.
In short, spoofing survives because the cost-benefit calculation still favors the manipulator—until caught.
The Illusion of Liquidity
Spoofing matters because it undermines the credibility of order books. Futures markets are central to global finance: the E-mini S&P 500 contract alone is a benchmark for equity exposure worldwide. Market participants—from pension funds to algorithmic traders—rely on visible depth as a signal of supply and demand.
When spoof orders dominate top-of-book levels, liquidity becomes an illusion:
- Buy-side firms may cross spreads based on false signals, raising transaction costs.
- Market makers are misled into quoting tighter than they should, exposing themselves to adverse selection.
- Retail traders suffer when chasing liquidity that disappears before they can transact.
The long-term cost is erosion of trust. If participants doubt the integrity of displayed depth, they retreat into dark pools or internalization schemes, weakening the very transparency that electronic markets were designed to provide.
Enforcement: Necessary but Not Sufficient
The Falloon sanction is important but highlights broader challenges.
- Penalty Size: $200,000 is meaningful for a small trader but negligible compared to multi-million-dollar enforcement actions against banks. If illicit gains exceeded the fine, deterrence is questionable.
- Trading Ban: A 12-month suspension is a strong measure, but history shows some traders resurface under new entities or in offshore venues.
- Reactive vs. Preventive: Enforcement punishes past misconduct but doesn’t prevent spoofing in real time. By the time regulators act, counterparties have already absorbed the cost.
Opinion: Strengthening Market Defenses
As a market structure analyst, I see three areas where reforms could strengthen defenses against spoofing:
- Sharper Penalties and Criminal Referrals
Civil fines often lag behind the economic impact of manipulation. To change incentives, regulators should impose fines that exceed profits from spoofing and pursue more criminal prosecutions for egregious cases. - Market Design Reforms
Exchanges could require minimum resting times for certain order types or impose dynamic order-to-trade ratios that penalize excessive cancellations. Such measures reduce the feasibility of flooding the book with ghost orders. - AI-Powered Surveillance
Detection systems must evolve beyond static pattern recognition. Machine learning can flag anomalous order book behaviors in real time, distinguishing spoofing from legitimate liquidity provision. Collaborative surveillance between exchanges and regulators is critical.
Spoofing and the Bigger Picture
The persistence of spoofing raises a larger question: is it a symptom of deeper flaws in modern market structure?
- The arms race in speed means liquidity is often fleeting, even without malicious intent.
- The rise of algorithmic trading has blurred the line between aggressive market making and manipulative layering.
- Global fragmentation makes enforcement harder, as traders can migrate to less regulated venues.
Ultimately, spoofing is both a legal violation and a structural warning signal: it exposes how fragile the perception of liquidity can be in markets built on algorithms and speed.
Closing Thoughts
The Falloon/Flatiron sanction is not a headline-grabber like the Flash Crash or Deutsche Bank fines, but it is no less important. It illustrates how spoofing continues to distort benchmark futures markets central to global finance.
The CFTC deserves credit for pursuing such cases, but lasting progress requires more than reactive enforcement. Regulators and exchanges must combine stronger deterrents, smarter technology, and market design reforms to restore confidence in displayed liquidity.
Until then, spoofing remains a game of ghost liquidity—one that erodes trust in the world’s deepest markets and leaves genuine participants wondering what is real in the order book.
Reference:
