A federal judge in Connecticut has ordered Florida man Michael Frederick Staryk to pay $547,616 in restitution to defrauded clients and a $5,907,720 civil monetary penalty in a commodity options fraud case brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC announced the default judgment on September 15, 2026, and said the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut also imposed permanent trading and registration bans. In a separate consent order, two relief defendants were directed to give up $110,509.86 in client money they had no legitimate claim to.
What the Connecticut court ordered Staryk to pay
According to the CFTC’s September 15 announcement, the judgment was entered against Staryk individually and doing business as Magestic World Wide Finance, a firm that also operated under the names Magestic WW Solutions and Magestic World Wide Solutions. Together, the restitution and the penalty come to $6,455,336, which the agency described as more than $6 million.
The two figures serve different purposes. The $547,616 in restitution is directed to the clients who lost money in the scheme. The $5,907,720 civil monetary penalty is a sanction for violating federal commodities law, nearly 11 times the restitution amount. The court also permanently barred Staryk from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, and from trading and registering in the markets the agency oversees.
A default judgment is entered when a defendant does not defend the case, so the court’s findings rest on the CFTC’s complaint without a trial. The agency said the default judgment and the separate consent order resolve all claims in the enforcement action it filed in 2024.
When the money has already been wired. Staryk’s clients sent funds to Connecticut bank accounts for trades that never happened, and the calls made in the first hour after a transfer like that shape what can still be traced. The first-hour recovery plan lays out that sequence in The Senior Fraud Defense & First-Hour Recovery Kit.
How the Magestic World Wide scheme worked
The CFTC laid out the scheme when it filed its complaint in October 2024. From at least 2021 through at least 2022, the agency alleged, Staryk and people working under his direction solicited at least approximately $600,000 from at least 26 retail clients in the United States. The money was supposed to fund trading in options on commodity futures contracts, including options on oil and gold futures listed on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Commodity Exchange.
Staryk, according to the complaint, oversaw and coached the purported traders who pitched prospective and existing clients. He created emails and a website, claimed to trade for clients, and answered questions as an “industry expert.” No individual accounts were opened, managed or traded as promised. Instead, the CFTC said, client funds were misappropriated.
The money trail ran through Connecticut. Clients were told to wire their funds to accounts at U.S. banks held in the name of Global Financial Institution LLC, a Connecticut company that the CFTC said was formed and controlled by Yvonne Stephanie Solerti-Coto, a Connecticut resident. From there, the agency alleged, the money was sent to companies and individuals with accounts at banks in Costa Rica and to others in the United States, including Solerti-Coto. The consent order against Solerti-Coto and Global Financial found they received $110,509.86 in Staryk client funds and ordered them to disgorge it.
A repeat offender who had been banned in 2004
Staryk was not new to the CFTC. In 2004, the agency held him liable for options fraud, revoked his registration, permanently banned him from trading, and imposed a cease-and-desist order and a civil monetary penalty. The 2024 complaint alleged that he did not tell the Magestic clients about that earlier action.
The case also had a criminal side. The CFTC said Staryk pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, based in part on the same conduct described in the civil complaint, in a case filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas. The agency thanked the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, the FBI’s Dallas/Fort Worth office, and Costa Rica’s securities regulator, the Superintendencia General de Valores, for their help.
The history matters for anyone evaluating a trading pitch. A permanent ban issued two decades earlier did not stop Staryk from soliciting new clients, according to the CFTC. What the ban did leave behind was a public disciplinary history, the kind of record a registration check is designed to surface.
What the case means for retirement savers weighing commodity pitches
Options on oil and gold futures are complex, leveraged products, and the pitch in this case leaned on the language of professional trading: named markets, a polished website, and a self-described industry expert. For older Americans drawing on savings, that kind of presentation can make a solicitation feel legitimate even when no trading takes place.
The CFTC has urged investors to verify that a firm or individual is registered before sending money, using the National Futures Association’s BASIC database, which also shows regulatory actions. A salesperson who resists that check, or who asks for wires to an account in a different company’s name, is showing two of the warning signs present in the Staryk case.
A restitution order is also not the same as a refund. The court has ordered Staryk to repay $547,616, but the CFTC has cautioned in other recent cases that court-ordered payments may not reach victims if defendants lack sufficient funds or assets. Clients who lost money typically depend on what can actually be collected, and on any distribution process that follows.
Suspected commodities fraud can be reported to the CFTC through its online tip and complaint form or its toll-free line at 866-366-2382. The Staryk case shows how long enforcement can take: the scheme ran from 2021, the civil complaint came in 2024, and the final judgment arrived in September 2026. A detailed, dated record of the solicitation, the wire instructions and every conversation gives investigators the most to work with during that time.
Years between a lost wire and a court judgment
Staryk’s clients waited roughly four years from the start of the scheme to a final order, and a judgment still does not guarantee repayment. What holds up across that stretch is an organized account of who called, what was promised and where the money went.
The Senior Fraud Defense & First-Hour Recovery Kit includes a fraud evidence and report log for keeping those details in one place, the first-hour recovery plan for the calls that come first, and the free credit-freeze steps for locking down credit after personal information is shared.
Start the evidence log with The Senior Fraud Defense & First-Hour Recovery Kit.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and reviewed against the linked official sources.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
