## Facts

- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) investigated possible manipulation of silver and silver futures markets in 1979–1980.
- The CFTC learned that Naji Robert Nahas, a Brazilian citizen and resident, had opened U.S. brokerage accounts and acquired substantial silver futures and bullion positions, including alleged control of other accounts holding large quantities of silver.
- Acting under 7 U.S.C. § 15, the CFTC issued an administrative subpoena duces tecum requiring Nahas to appear, testify, and produce documents in Washington, D.C.
- The subpoena and a later district court show-cause order were served only in Brazil through substituted service at Nahas’s office and residence.
- Nahas did not appear or comply; the district court ordered compliance, later froze Nahas’s U.S. assets pending proceedings, and ultimately held him in civil contempt after he appeared through counsel.
- On appeal, Nahas argued the district court lacked statutory jurisdiction to enforce a CFTC subpoena served in a foreign country on a foreign national, rendering the enforcement, freeze, and contempt orders void.

## Issues

1. Whether 7 U.S.C. § 15 authorizes a federal district court to enforce a CFTC investigative subpoena served abroad on a foreign citizen in a foreign nation.
2. If the enforcement order exceeded the court’s statutory jurisdiction and was void, whether civil contempt sanctions and related coercive orders could stand.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction under 7 U.S.C. § 15 to enforce the subpoena as served in Brazil on a Brazilian citizen.
- The court vacated the subpoena enforcement order, the order freezing Nahas’s U.S. assets, and the civil contempt order.
- Having resolved the case on statutory jurisdiction, the court did not decide the legality of service under Brazilian or international law.

## Legal Principles

- A court’s power to enforce an agency subpoena is limited to the authority Congress granted in the governing statute.
- Absent clear congressional authorization, statutes are generally construed not to authorize extraterritorial enforcement against foreign nationals served outside the United States.
- An enforcement order issued without statutory jurisdiction is void, and contempt sanctions cannot be predicated on refusal to comply with a void order.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit concluded that 7 U.S.C. § 15 did not clearly authorize enforcement of a CFTC investigative subpoena served in a foreign country on a foreign citizen, so the district court lacked jurisdiction; it therefore vacated the subpoena enforcement, asset-freeze, and contempt orders.


Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1984)