In CFTC v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 283 (9th Cir.1979), the Ninth Circuit held that proof of intent to defraud was not necessary for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") to enjoin violations of Sec. 4o of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"). The court found that it was in keeping with the purposes of the CEA to require a showing of scienter under Sec. 4b, which applies to any person trading on a futures market, but not to require proof of intent under Sec. 4o, which applies only to commodity trading advisors acting in their fiduciary capacity in advising clients.