ForexnPower: Profits in the Pitch, Losses in the Accounts

The ForexnPower CFTC judgment ordered Safety Capital Management and GNS Capital to pay $835,058 in civil restitution for forex fraud, with separate civil penalties against each company. The complaint alleged that the companies took in over $1.5 million with promises of monthly profits without losses, while customers lost money and pool funds paid personal and business expenses. If you worked with the sales materials, managed accounts or company bank accounts, this case shows why the difference between the pitch and the transactions matters.

Both New York companies did business as ForexnPower. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought the civil action, and the federal court in the Eastern District of New York ruled against both companies on March 10, 2026. The companies had never answered the complaint. This is one of the CFTC fraud cases where customers encountered one brand while their money went into different accounts.

What ForexnPower Promised

ForexnPower sold a secret trading method called ASET with a promise of 10% monthly profits and no risk of loss. The Commission’s complaint alleged that the companies also told customers they could make $100,000 from a $500 investment. The promise reached prospective investors through Korean-language newspaper advertisements, the company website, written materials and seminars in Queens.

The court’s decision against GNS’s chief executive adds the machinery behind the pitch. ForexnPower advertised on Korean-language radio and promoted ASET, also called Super Power-Bot, as an automated trading signals program. Its business cards repeated the return claims. Its sales materials supplied a chart of supposed investment growth. The promised performance followed the customer from the advertisement to the seminar to the account opening.

At those seminars, Safety Capital’s founder and chief executive made the no-risk claims. GNS’s chief executive attended and helped customers complete English-language applications to open accounts at FXCM, a registered futures commission merchant and retail foreign exchange dealer. The court found that he did not translate the applications’ risk disclosures into Korean. ForexnPower’s own advertisements and sales materials also omitted Korean-language risk disclosures.

The same decision describes a false claim that an insurance fund would cover customer trading losses after a year. We see the same reassurance reinforced at every stage: the method would produce the profits, and the supposed insurance would take care of losses. The customers were being sold confidence that the trading results could not support.

Managed Accounts and the Commodity Pool

ForexnPower offered customers two ways to put money into forex: an individually managed trading account or a pooled investment. That distinction explains why the Commission followed both trading-account results and money moving through company bank accounts.

Safety Capital never registered with the Commission. GNS registered as a commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor in October 2013, after it was already managing customer accounts and soliciting pool investments.

The complaint alleged that managed-account customers deposited approximately $845,000 and lost nearly $400,000, including commissions and fees. Safety Capital and GNS earned commissions on those accounts. Customers’ losses and the companies’ compensation existed side by side.

An email made the contradiction especially clear. The complaint describes what the companies told customers about a month of trading:

For someone handling customer communications or account records, that email supplies a specific comparison: the performance reported to customers against the results for the same period. We would want to understand who prepared the message, what account information they had and how the commissions appeared in those accounts.

The Revelation Forex Fund action also concerned allegations of an invented track record. The Commission’s consent order involving RFF GP and KGW Capital Management resolved allegations of invented trading experience and performance alongside diversion of investor money. The useful connection is the sales claim: an investment history can persuade customers to entrust money to a manager, while the trading and bank records tell a different story.

Where the Pool Money Went

The pool allegations followed money that customers expected ForexnPower to trade together. The complaint put pool deposits at approximately $718,000 and alleged that more than $622,000 went to personal and business expenses and payments to other investors. It described cash withdrawals, checks to personal accounts, entertainment and meals. At least $80,000 allegedly went to payments presented as trading profits but funded with other investors’ money.

The recommendation adopted in the corporate judgment found that Safety Capital and GNS mixed pool funds with company money. They deposited customer funds into the same accounts used for ForexnPower’s salaries and business expenses. They also failed to operate the pool as a separate legal entity.

That bank-account structure matters. The promised use was pooled forex trading, while the accounts receiving the money also paid the business’s own bills. The complaint alleged that the people controlling those accounts knew or should have known that most pool money was being diverted from trading.

The criminal indictment, reproduced in the civil decision, described stock sales in Safety Capital. It charged that the two chief executives sold stock by telling most investors their money would be pooled for forex trading and then diverted most of that money.

A customer’s withdrawal request exposed the dependence on fresh deposits. After describing a solicitation by the person presenting himself as ForexnPower’s chief executive, the complaint states:

We think that explanation says more than the sales chart. The alleged answer to a request for the customer’s money was someone else’s next deposit. The same separation between promised profits and available funds matters in relationship-based trading fraud, where a withdrawal conversation can expose what the investment story leaves out.

What the CFTC Judgment Ordered

The court imposed a civil penalty of $1,441,143 against Safety Capital and a separate civil penalty of $186,102 against GNS. The adopted recommendation tied those penalties to three times each company’s monetary gain, using the Commission’s analysis of company bank accounts and transactions with customers. Both companies and both chief executives owe the civil restitution together.

The court permanently prohibited further violations and certain professional activities involving commodity interests. In explaining the penalties, it emphasized that the companies had deliberately exploited their access to Korean-language speakers in Queens who relied on them to protect and manage their investments. The community trust used to sell the investment was part of the court’s explanation of the harm.

What Evidence Is Required to Prove Fraud?

In ForexnPower, the evidence connected the promised returns with managed-account results, commission income, pool deposits and the uses of company bank accounts. The withdrawal conversation supplied another connection: what a customer was told when asking for money back. The Commission also supported its corporate penalty request with a spreadsheet analyzing bank accounts and transactions with past customers.

A sales employee may know how the return claims were prepared. Someone managing trading accounts may know the results behind the customer email. A bookkeeper may understand which incoming deposits paid salaries, business expenses or earlier investors. We work with that knowledge to explain the conduct and the decisions behind the records.

The CFTC whistleblower program provides awards totaling 10% to 30% of qualifying monetary sanctions collected. We assess how your information could support a CFTC whistleblower case and bring in the expertise it needs.

You Know What the Customers Were Told

If you saw a forex return claim that the accounts contradicted, or handled pool deposits used to pay the business’s bills, talk with our whistleblower experts about building your strongest CFTC whistleblower case. We work with you to connect the pitch, the accounts and the people making the decisions. We bring in CFTC whistleblower lawyers who understand forex solicitation and customer funds, and stay beside you as the case develops.