On September 16, 2026, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Director of Enforcement David Miller spoke at DACOM NYC 2026, offering a statement on how the CFTC intends to police prediction markets, carbon credit programs, and traditional derivatives markets alike. Director Miller’s remarks touched on insider trading, market manipulation, retail fraud, and the Bank Secrecy Act and included extended comments on how the agency views the intersection of new event-contract markets with decades-old regulatory principles.

Enforcement Priorities: Same Principles, New Markets

Director Miller identified a broad set of enforcement priorities for the Division of Enforcement (Division), including insider trading on prediction markets and how misappropriation theory applies to that market; market manipulation involving energy markets; market abuse such as spoofing and wash trading; retail fraud involving commodity pool operators and Ponzi schemes; and willful violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering requirements.

On prediction markets specifically, Director Miller framed the Division’s approach as an extension of established commodities law rather than the creation of a new enforcement regime. Event contracts, he said, are new products but are legally swaps, and certain exchanges list them under self-certification procedures. He pointed to Core Principle 3, which requires that contracts listed on a designated contract market not be readily susceptible to manipulation, as the touchstone that exchanges must apply when deciding whether and how to list these products. In his view, exchanges must make that determination, and the same regulatory principles that have long applied to other swaps and futures products apply equally to event contracts.

Director Miller also referenced the CFTC’s March guidance addressing heightened manipulability concerns in this space, describing exchanges as the first line of defense. Exchanges, he said, need to maintain robust surveillance and compliance programs and be discerning about which event contracts they choose to list.

Insider Trading on Prediction Markets: Where the Line Falls

Director Miller devoted significant attention to how insider trading concepts apply to prediction markets, describing a spectrum between unlawful insider trading and the ordinary use of tradeable information. He indicated that the threshold question is whether there has been a breach of duty tied to the source of the information at issue, consistent with the misappropriation theory the CFTC has invoked in this area. Where a trader acquires a better view of an event without that kind of breach, he suggested, that does not, without more, constitute unlawful insider trading.

On the practical question of permissible trading, Director Miller said that a person who legally acquires information and wants to hedge based on it should be able to do so, describing that activity as part of the basic function of these markets. Information a trader develops or lawfully acquires, in his framing, is fair game for trading purposes; the analysis turns on the duty owed with respect to the information’s source, not merely on whether the trader had an informational advantage.

He also flagged coordination and distribution of data as an area of focus, noting that the CFTC has entered into memoranda of understanding with Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League, and that the agency is encouraging designated contract markets to pursue similar arrangements.

Carbon Credits: A New Area of Concern

Director Miller identified carbon credits, and Renewable Identification Numbers in particular, as an area of recent concern for the Division. He described fraud risks including phantom credits and double counting, and confirmed that the CFTC has launched an investigation in this area. He cautioned more broadly that efforts by bad actors to exploit new or developing markets will not go unnoticed, and stated that the Division intends to police fraud in all forms and pursue an aggressive enforcement posture where warranted.

Onshore, Offshore, and Innovation Policy

Addressing the relationship between offshore platforms and CFTC jurisdiction, Director Miller acknowledged that the line between onshore and offshore activity is often blurred, noting that some platforms may not be exclusively offshore and that the agency looks at the facts of each case. He described the current administration’s approach as an effort to be transparent about innovation so that market activity does not migrate offshore, and said the CFTC wants to bring innovation onshore and engage directly with industry, encouraging market participants with questions to come speak with the agency.

Director Miller also described ongoing coordination between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying the two agencies speak weekly to work synergistically and pursue a harmonized, pro-innovation approach to overlapping areas of jurisdiction.

Surveillance, Cooperation, and the “Cop on the Beat”

Director Miller described the Division as working fiercely to protect markets through robust surveillance, characterizing the CFTC’s posture as that of a “cop on the beat.” At the same time, he pointed to the agency’s cooperation policy, which allows for declinations, including in some circumstances where a covert investigation is already underway, as a mechanism intended to incentivize market participants to self-report.

Why This Matters for Market Participants

Director Miller’s remarks reinforce a theme this blog has tracked closely: the CFTC continues to apply long-standing commodities law principles, including Core Principle 3 and misappropriation-based insider trading theories, to the growing event-contract and prediction market space, rather than treating that space as outside its existing framework. Exchanges that list or are considering listing event contracts may choose to evaluate their listing and self-certification practices against Core Principle 3 and the CFTC’s March guidance on heightened manipulability. Market participants trading on information they have lawfully acquired may decide to consider how that information was sourced and whether any duty attaches to it, given the breach-of-duty threshold Director Miller described. Companies involved in carbon credit or Renewable Identification Number markets may wish to evaluate their programs in light of the CFTC’s stated concerns about phantom credits and double counting and the investigation Director Miller confirmed is underway. And market participants who identify potential violations may want to be aware of the CFTC’s cooperation policy and the possibility of declination when evaluating whether to self-report.

The breadth of Director Miller’s enforcement agenda underscores how much the Division has on its plate. Prediction market oversight, carbon credit fraud investigations, cross-agency coordination with the SEC, and extensive new rulemaking represent a substantial portfolio for any regulator. Market participants should pay close attention to how the Division sequences and operationalizes these priorities, as that sequencing may shape which areas receive the most immediate attention. For companies navigating these markets, the practical takeaway is to track how the Division’s priorities translate into concrete enforcement activity and to ensure that compliance programs are calibrated to the areas Director Miller has signaled as focal points.

If you have questions about how these enforcement priorities may affect your business, please contact Jeff Le Riche or Kip Randall.