Thomas

In June 1997, Dunhill Financial Group, Inc. ("Dunhill"), a registered introducing broker ("IB"), contracted with NMP to solicit prospective customers over the Internet in order to generate interested prospects for Dunhill associated persons ("APs") to solicit by telephone for futures and options trading. Thus, NMP was required to be registered as an IB, but was not.

Thomas, the owner and sole employee of NMP, was responsible for soliciting prospective customers over the Internet on behalf of Dunhill. Thomas contracted with Forrest Dayton, Jr. ("Dayton") to send these advertisements and purported to supervise Dayton's work. Thus, Thomas was required to be registered as an AP of NMP, but was not.

Finally, NMP and Thomas each failed in their duties to supervise diligently Dayton's work and to review the advertisements prior to their being sent over the Internet. NMP and Thomas thereby violated Section 166.3 of the Regulations.

New Millennium Promotions is a Georgia corporation located at 4957 Overlook View Court, Duluth, Georgia 30096. NMP has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity.

Michael Thomas, who resides at 4957 Overlook View Court, Duluth, Georgia 30096, is the owner and sole employee of NMP. Thomas was formerly an AP and principal of Dunhill, but was not registered in any capacity from July 1997 through September 10, 1998.

C. FACTS

Rather than send the advertisements himself, Thomas contracted with Dayton to send the Internet advertisements. Dayton chose prospective customers to whom to send the Internet advertisements, prepared the response form to be filled out by persons responding to the advertisements, and received responses from prospective customers. Dayton then provided the responses from prospective customers to Thomas, who in turn provided them to Dunhill. Although Thomas was responsible for supervising Dayton, who was operating as an AP of the IB, there was no program in place for the review of Dayton's work. The failure of NMP and Thomas to implement and follow a program of supervision resulted in Dayton sending advertisements containing misleading language to prospective customers as part of the solicitation. NMP and Thomas thereby failed to diligently supervise Dayton's Internet solicitation of prospective customers who were to be further solicited by Dunhill.

Section 4d(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to act as an IB unless such person is registered as such. Section 4k(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to be employed or act as an agent of an IB if that person acts in a capacity that involves (i) the solicitation or acceptance of customers' orders or (ii) the supervision of any person who solicits or accepts customers' orders, unless such person is registered with the Commission as an associated person of the IB. Commission Regulation 3.12(a) is a corollary to Section 4k(1) in that it also states that it is unlawful for any person to be associated with an IB without being registered as an associated person of that IB.

From June 1997 through at least July 1998, NMP regularly solicited customers to trade options through Dunhill by sending bulk Internet advertisements. NMP was paid a monthly fee by Dunhill for the list of persons who responded to the advertisement. NMP therefore was an IB and violated � 4d(1) of the Act by failing to register as such.

Thomas was the sole employee of NMP, was involved in soliciting customers for Dunhill and was responsible for the supervision of Dayton, the person who was directly responsible for sending the Internet advertisements to solicit prospective customers. Thomas thus functioned as an AP of NMP and violated both Section 4k(1) of the Act and Commission Regulation 3.12(a) by failing to register with the Commission.

NMP did not have a meaningful system of supervising the Internet advertisements which Dunhill hired NMP to disseminate. NMP hired Dayton to solicit customers for Dunhill by disseminating the advertisements to, and receiving the responses from, prospective customers. NMP and Thomas failed, however, to review the advertisements in their complete and final form prior to the advertisements being transmitted over the Internet, which resulted in misleading language being included in the advertisements. NMP's and Thomas' failure to supervise diligently was in violation of Section 166.3 of the Regulations.

Respondents NMP and Thomas have submitted a Joint Offer of Settlement, in which, without admitting or denying the findings herein, they:

1. Admit the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to all matters set forth in this Order;

3. Stipulate that the record basis on which this Order is entered consists solely of the Complaint, this Order and findings to which NMP and Thomas have consented in the Offer, which is incorporated in this Order; and

4. Consent to the Commission's issuance of this Order, which makes findings and orders:

Solely on the basis of the consent evidenced by the Offer, and prior to any adjudication on the merits, the Commission finds that NMP violated Section 4d(1) of the Act and Section 166.3 of the Regulations; and Thomas violated Section 4k(1) of the Act and Sections 3.12(a) and 166.3 of the Regulations.

1. NMP shall cease and desist from violating Section 4d(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. � 6d(1) (1994), and Section 166.3 of the Commission's Regulations, 17 C.F.R. �166.3 (1998);

2. Thomas shall cease and desist from violating Section 4k(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. �6k(1) (1994), and Sections 3.12(a), 17 C.F.R. �3.12(a) (1998), and 166.3 of the Commission's Regulations;

3. The Commission notes that an order of civil monetary penalties against NMP and Thomas would be appropriate in this case, but does not impose it based upon their financial condition. NMP and Thomas acknowledge that the Commission's acceptance of this Offer is conditioned upon the accuracy and completeness of the sworn Financial Statement and other evidence that has been provided regarding their financial condition. NMP and Thomas consent that if at any time following the entry of the Order, the Division obtains information indicating that the representations concerning their financial conditions were fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete in any material respect at the time they were made, the Division may, at any time following the entry of the Order, petition the Commission to: (1) reopen this matter to consider whether NMP and Thomas provided accurate and complete financial information at the time such representations were made; (2) determine the amount of civil monetary penalty to be imposed; and (3) seek any additional remedies that the Commission would be authorized to impose in this proceeding if the Joint Offer had not been accepted. No other issues shall be considered in connection with this petition other than whether the financial information provided by NMP and Thomas was fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete in any material respect, the amount of civil monetary penalty to be imposed, and whether any additional remedies should be imposed. NMP and Thomas may not, by way of defense to any such petition, contest the validity of, or the findings in, the Order, contest the allegations of the Complaint or assert that payment of a civil monetary penalty should not be ordered; and

___________________________________________
	)
In the Matter of:	)	CIVIL Docket No. 99-7
	)
DUNHILL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,	)	ORDER MAKING FINDINGS
MARK HUTCHERSON,	)	AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL
KEVIN JACKAM,	)	SANCTIONS AS TO RESPONDENTS
NEW MILLENNIUM PROMOTIONS,	)	NEW MILLENNIUM PROMOTIONS
MICHAEL THOMAS, and	)	AND MICHAEL THOMAS
FORREST DAYTON, JR.,	)
	)
Registrant.	)
___________________________________________	)

		___________________________________

		Jean Webb
		Secretary to the Commission
		Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Date: July 29, 1999		___________________________________