WASHINGTON, May 27, 2026 — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said Wednesday it joined Gemini Trust Company LLC in a motion for relief from judgment in a long-running enforcement case, concluding after an internal review that the agency’s original complaint “should not have been filed” under current enforcement standards.
The joint motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks relief from a January 2025 consent order entered in the case originally brought by the CFTC against Gemini in June 2022.
The CFTC said it conducted a “comprehensive review” of the investigation, evidence, charging decisions and litigation conduct surrounding the matter, while also considering broader changes in federal digital-asset policy and enforcement approaches across U.S. agencies.
“As a result, the CFTC concluded the complaint should not have been filed — and would not have been under current enforcement standards,” the agency said in a statement.
CFTC cites concerns over evidence and enforcement process
According to the regulator, the review found that the complaint was “largely based on a whistleblower’s account known to be lacking in credibility.”
The agency additionally stated that investigators pursued Gemini — which the CFTC described as “a fraud victim” — over alleged false statements made during a registration application process rather than focusing on alleged fraudsters.
The CFTC also said its review identified “serious questions” regarding the strength of the evidence against Gemini.
Among the findings cited by the regulator were allegations that requested evidentiary support had been withheld from a Commissioner during the agency’s vote on the complaint and that litigation conduct later prevented Gemini from obtaining evidence necessary for its defense.
The agency further stated that personnel had “improperly influenced” the CFTC’s regulatory authority to create settlement leverage in the matter.
Joint motion seeks relief from prospective provisions
The CFTC and Gemini jointly moved the court for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to the filing, the parties are seeking to vacate the consent order’s prospective provisions, arguing that continued enforcement of the remaining injunctive provisions “serves neither the CFTC’s mission nor the public interest.”
The filing states that non-prospective provisions of the consent order, including civil monetary penalties, have already been satisfied.
Case adds to broader digital-asset enforcement recalibration
The CFTC said the findings demonstrated the necessity of the federal government’s revised enforcement standards and broader policy recalibration in the digital-asset sector.
The case adds to broader shifts in U.S. digital-asset enforcement policy and evolving federal oversight approaches across multiple agencies.
