The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced more than $8 million in awards to five whistleblowers whose information led to a successful enforcement action against a fraudulent scheme (Press Release). The Commission set out the basis for those awards in its Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Determination No. 26-WB-07, dated June 1, 2026 (Order, p. 1, 8).
The awards arise under the CFTC Whistleblower Program, created by Section 748 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and administered under the Commission’s Whistleblower Rules, 17 C.F.R. pt. 165 (Press Release; Order, p. 1). The program is funded entirely by sanctions paid by violators, and no money is taken from harmed customers (Press Release).
The matter is notable less for its dollar figure than for what the Order explains about Commission practice. It shows how the CFTC weighs a first tipster against claimants who provide more sustained help, when it will excuse a late-filed application, and how narrowly it reads the “unique hardships” factor that can raise an award. The sections below cover the announcement and program basics, the allocation among the five claimants, the deadline waiver for the first filer, the denial of the fifth claimant’s request for a larger share, and the Commission’s treatment of his or her identity-theft claim.
What did the CFTC announce in its $8 million whistleblower award?
The CFTC announced awards totaling more than $8 million to five whistleblowers whose information led to a successful enforcement action against a fraudulent scheme (Press Release). The Director of the Whistleblower Office, Raagnee Beri, said the awardees’ assistance “helped the CFTC bring and complete an enforcement action with a substantial recovery of funds for defrauded investors” (Press Release).
The Commission also described the program’s scale. Since its first award in 2014, the CFTC has paid more than $430 million to whistleblowers, tied to enforcement actions producing more than $3.7 billion in monetary sanctions (Press Release). Eligible whistleblowers may receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected, paid from the Customer Protection Fund rather than from harmed customers (Press Release).
Consistent with the confidentiality protections in the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC does not disclose the specific enforcement action or the exact award amount (Press Release). The public version of the Order likewise redacts the individual percentages and dollar figures (Order, p. 2).
How did the CFTC allocate the awards among the five whistleblowers?
The Commission divided the award between the whistleblower who first reported the fraud and four others who assisted more extensively (Order, p. 2-4). All five qualified because each voluntarily provided original information that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Actions, which stem from the same misconduct (Order, p. 2-3).
Claimant 1 filed the tip that led the CFTC to open the underlying investigation but provided limited help afterward (Order, p. 2-3). The Order treats that early reporting as making Claimant 1’s information “more significant” under the award factors in Rule 165.9, 17 C.F.R. § 165.9 (Order, p. 4).
The other four claimants reported before the complaint in the first Covered Action and gave more sustained assistance (Order, p. 2-3). The Order notes that Claimant 2 “appropriately encouraged … others to assist the staff of the Commission” and that Claimant 3 helped in “identifying new and productive lines of inquiry,” while Claimants 4 and 5 conserved Commission resources (Order, p. 3). That sustained assistance was a countervailing factor weighed against Claimant 1’s first-tipster role (Order, p. 4).
The aggregate award and each claimant’s percentage are redacted in the public Order, and the dollar figures remain subject to the monetary sanctions actually collected (Order, p. 2, 4). The more than $8 million total comes from the Commission’s public announcement (Press Release).
Why did the CFTC waive the filing deadline for Claimant 1 under Rule 165.5(c)?
The Commission waived the deadline because Claimant 1 faced “extraordinary circumstances” in trying to file on time (Order, p. 3). Claimant 1’s award application arrived by fax less than an hour after the deadline, and Rule 165.5(c), 17 C.F.R. § 165.5(c), lets the Commission excuse a late filing in such circumstances (Order, p. 3).
The Order finds that Claimant 1 tried diligently to fax the application before and after the deadline but ran into unusual technical difficulties (Order, p. 3). It analogizes the situation to James v. Wilkie, 917 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where a claimant placed a benefits application in his mailbox to be postmarked on the deadline but the Postal Service did not pick it up (Order, p. 3).
Why did the CFTC deny Claimant 5’s request for a higher award percentage?
The Commission denied the request because Claimant 5 did not show that he or she deserved a larger share than the Preliminary Determination recommended (Order, p. 4-5). The amount of any award is “in the discretion of the Commission” under Section 23(c)(1)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 26(c)(1)(A), and the Rule 165.9 factors are not ranked or assigned fixed weights (Order, p. 3).
Claimant 5 argued he or she was “the most significant whistleblower” and so should receive the largest award (Order, p. 4). The Order rejects that premise, explaining that Claimant 1’s information caused the opening of the investigation and supported a higher percentage for that claimant.
The Order grounds that allocation in prior precedent, quoting CFTC Whistleblower Award Determination No. 22-WB-01, 2021 WL 6753648, at 3 (Nov. 22, 2021), that a higher percentage for a first reporter is “appropriate because of the key role that Claimant 1’s information played in causing the Division to open the investigation” (Order, p. 5). The supporting declarations, even as redacted, did not establish that Claimant 5 was the most significant contributor (Order, p. 4).
Did the CFTC treat Claimant 5’s identity theft as a “unique hardship”?
No. The Commission found that Claimant 5’s alleged identity theft was neither a “unique hardship” nor “a result of” his or her whistleblowing, the two requirements in Rule 165.9(b)(2)(vi) (Order, p. 5-8). Claimant 5 pointed to a higher security deposit and the cost of credit monitoring but did not quantify or document those costs (Order, p. 5).
On the first point, the Order reads “unique hardship” to mean harm that is remarkable and characteristic of whistleblowing, such as termination or being blackballed from an industry, not “being the only one of its kind” (Order, p. 6). It contrasts CFTC and SEC matters recognizing job loss and unemployability as unique hardships with the more modest economic harms Claimant 5 described (Order, p. 5-6).
On the second point, the Order finds no causal link between the CFTC’s actions and the alleged identity theft (Order, p. 6-8). It notes that Claimant 5 had publicly posted the relevant information on social media and that the data was not the kind of high-risk, sensitive information, like Social Security numbers, that courts treat as creating a substantial risk of identity theft, citing McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., LLC, 995 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2021) (Order, p. 6-7).
The Order also treats the mere sequence of events as insufficient, drawing on Daniel v. NPS, 891 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2018), where a court held that asserting a theft occurred after a disclosure “does not connect the dots” (Order, p. 7). A footnote adds that the Commission did not disclose any information that could reasonably be expected to reveal Claimant 5’s identity as a whistleblower under Section 23(h)(2), 7 U.S.C. § 26(h)(2) (Order, p. 4, n.3).
For more on this topic and related developments, see our Financial Markets Resource Center‘s overview of whistleblower programs. If you have questions, you can request a consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the CFTC announce in Whistleblower Award Determination No. 26-WB-07?
The CFTC awarded more than $8 million to five whistleblowers and set out how it allocated the award and resolved a contested reconsideration request (Press Release; Order, p. 1, 8). The Order, dated June 1, 2026, ties the awards to a single enforcement action against a fraudulent scheme and was issued under the CFTC Whistleblower Program created by the Dodd-Frank Act (Press Release; Order, p. 1).
How does the CFTC decide how much each whistleblower receives?
The award amount is in the Commission’s discretion and is guided by the factors in Rule 165.9, which are not ranked or given fixed weights (Order, p. 3). Eligible whistleblowers can receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected (Press Release). Here, the Commission credited the first tipster’s role in opening the investigation while also weighing the more sustained assistance of the other four claimants (Order, p. 4).
Why did the CFTC waive the award-application deadline for the first whistleblower?
Because Claimant 1 faced “extraordinary circumstances,” which Rule 165.5(c) allows the Commission to excuse (Order, p. 3). The application arrived by fax less than an hour late after diligent attempts that were frustrated by technical difficulties, a situation the Order compared to James v. Wilkie (Order, p. 3).
What counts as a “unique hardship” under the CFTC Whistleblower Rules?
The Commission reads “unique hardship” in Rule 165.9(b)(2)(vi) as harm that is remarkable and characteristic of whistleblowing, such as termination or industry blackballing (Order, p. 6). It does not mean a harm experienced by only one person. Routine costs like a higher security deposit or paying for credit monitoring did not qualify (Order, p. 5-6).
Why didn’t Claimant 5’s identity-theft claim increase the award?
The Commission found the alleged identity theft was neither a unique hardship nor a result of the whistleblowing, the two requirements in Rule 165.9(b)(2)(vi) (Order, p. 5-8). Claimant 5 had publicly posted the relevant information on social media, the data was not high-risk, and the timing alone did not establish causation (Order, p. 6-8).
Are the individual whistleblower award amounts public?
No. The CFTC withholds the specific enforcement action and the exact award amounts to protect whistleblower confidentiality (Press Release). The public Order redacts each claimant’s percentage and dollar figure, and the more than $8 million total comes from the Commission’s announcement (Order, p. 2; Press Release).